Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.project > #13069
| From | Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.project |
| Subject | Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? |
| Date | 2022-11-21 01:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Fu2o9-5ard-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <FtZqi-58AL-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <Fu02Z-594w-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <Fu0w2-59fd-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <Fu0Z4-59Fv-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <Fu2et-5anl-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:07:53AM +0100, Michael Neuffer wrote:
>Am 20. November 2022 23:04:05 MEZ schrieb Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org>:
>>On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 10:45:15PM +0100, Michael Neuffer wrote:
>>> On 11/20/22 22:14, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
>>> > On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 at 21:42, G. Branden Robinson
>>> > <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Thank you for, perhaps inadvertently, compelling me to review some of
>>> > > the content of the package. I can now say that I am certain there is
>>> > > material of worth in the fortunes-off package and support its retention
>>> > > in the Debian distribution. A review process for individual entries
>>> > > that are incompatible with the project's values is manifest in the BTS.
>>> > >
>>> > rational approach vs cancel culture: 1 vs 0
>>> > <3
>>>
>>> I can only very much agree to this.
>>
>>I also wholly agree, alas it seems we already lost before this even
>>started :(
>>
>>https://tracker.debian.org/news/1385116/accepted-fortune-mod-11991-72-source-amd64-all-into-unstable/
>>
>
>As it was an NMU, this should be easily rectified.
>Don't let cancel culture win.
Are you volunteering to pick up the package and review its contents,
removing the worst stuff that is clearly *not* fit for us to publish?
In its previous state it included:
* content that is downright illegal in many jurisdictions
* content that is impossible to justify against Debian's stated
values
so simply undoing the NMU here is clearly not an acceptable route
forward.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
< Aardvark> I dislike C++ to start with. C++11 just seems to be
handing rope-creating factories for users to hang multiple
instances of themselves.
Back to linux.debian.project | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2022-11-19 16:10 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2022-11-19 17:40 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2022-11-19 17:40 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2022-11-19 21:50 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2022-11-19 22:10 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2022-11-19 23:20 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 01:00 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-11-20 12:00 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2022-11-20 14:20 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 21:50 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "Roberto A. Foglietta" <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 22:30 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Michael Neuffer <neuffer@neuffer.com> - 2022-11-20 23:00 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2022-11-20 23:30 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Michael Neuffer <neuffer@neuffer.com> - 2022-11-21 00:50 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2022-11-21 01:00 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "Roberto A. Foglietta" <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 03:20 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 08:10 +0100
Aw: Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2022-11-21 16:10 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 03:20 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-11-21 08:10 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2022-11-22 04:50 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 17:40 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 18:00 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Hanno 'Rince' Wagner <wagner@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 18:10 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 19:10 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org> - 2022-11-21 03:10 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <tiago@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 03:10 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 11:40 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2022-12-14 00:00 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2022-12-14 10:10 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2022-12-14 18:50 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "Roberto A. Foglietta" <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 22:40 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2022-12-14 23:10 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "Roberto A. Foglietta" <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 10:10 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 00:50 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 06:00 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 08:10 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Sam Hartman <hartmans@suchdamage.org> - 2022-11-21 16:10 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 21:30 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? nick black <dankamongmen@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 23:00 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-11-22 06:50 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2022-12-17 20:20 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 23:20 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-12-19 06:30 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 17:40 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2022-12-20 18:00 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 11:40 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2022-11-21 23:10 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-11-22 07:00 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Alexander Reichle-Schmehl <alexander@alphamar.org> - 2022-11-22 10:50 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Judit Foglszinger <urbec@riseup.net> - 2022-11-20 12:00 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2022-11-20 12:20 +0100
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? David Prévot <david@tilapin.org> - 2022-11-20 15:50 +0100
Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-11-20 21:50 +0100
Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2022-11-20 22:00 +0100
Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-11-20 22:30 +0100
Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 00:00 +0100
Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org> - 2022-11-21 03:10 +0100
Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2022-11-20 23:40 +0100
csiph-web