On 22 Apr 2003, Michael Tindal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Authors have a moral right (and a legal one in some places) not to > > have their work mutilated. > > I do not consider removing 20-something lines of output from a > program whose purpose is to create a filesystem mutilating it. By > contrast, mkfs.ext[2,3] and mkfs.xfs do not output such messages, > simply the status of the task at hand. As an author, I can see how > these messages severely hinder usability. They would be more > appropriate in a CREDITS or AUTHORS file.
I agree that a file would be a more appropriate location. I'm just asking that Debian persuade Hans rather than unilaterally removing it. Note that reiserfsprogs-3.6.4-4.diff has in fact not moved the credits to another file, but *removed them entirely*. The sponsors of the program are not mentioned at all in the Debian package. This is unconscionable. > Prominently does not necessarily imply causing the program to be > unusable. That kind of hyperbole is not helpful. unusable adj 1: impossible to use [syn: {unserviceable}, {unuseable}] 2: not able to perform its normal function [syn: {inoperable}] -- Martin