Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Though you could try the following set of criteria:
[I added these back in for the sake of clarity]
>>1. Are there already similar packages in Debian? NO - okay, add.
>>
>>2. Does it offer significant *technical* advantages over those packages?
>> YES - okay, add.
>>
>>3. Are any of those other similar packages poorly maintained? YES -
>> don't add another until the others are cleaned up or removed - so
>> don't add
>>
>>4. Hairsplitting time - is there likelihood that adding it will cause
>> grave distress to some proportion of the target market? NO - don't
>> add.
>>
>>Default: then add it.
>>
>
> We could have all kinds of criteria. The ones you propose are not, in
> fact, our criteria. Our criteria are something like:
>
> 1. Does the license meet the DFSG?
> 2. Is there a Debian maintainer willing to maintain or sponsor the
> package?
>
These are givens. I know this. It can't move from valid-ITP to package
without this.
> Now, you might want a different set of criteria, in which case, please
> suggest them in the proper forum, which is not here.
Actually, I don't want a different set of criteria. As a user, I am
concerned that Debian is in danger of having a thousand "CPU
monitors"[1] all with RC bugs. A process for restricting addition of
semi-duplicate packages might reduce workloads all round, and improve
quality of installed packages.
> My concern is that Saudi Arabia and China don't get to tell us what
> our criteria are, and I would oppose any criterion that amounts to
> "give China a veto". Your proposal allows China a veto in some cases,
> and this makes it unreasonable to me.
Not quite. I simply suggest that *in the absence of any technical reason
why*, and *in the presence of a social reason why not*, it would be
polite to adopt "why not".
That social reason might be "I can get tortured for possessing this" and
it might be "pornview is tacky as a package name - come[2] up with a
better one" or just "I believe this license isn't DFSG-free".
Of course, the fact that the package under discussion can make
possession of a Debian CD illegal in certain countries[3] trumps either
of our arguments.
> It is outrageous to think that China's or Saudia Arabia's censorship
> regimes should somehow influence our decision making in the slightest.
I believe the correct flame-inducing argument at this point is "tell
that to the first person tortured or executed for possessing a Debian CD
with hot-babe on it *who was not aware it was there*".
Testimony elsewhere in this thread suggests that *possession* in those
countries is a capital crime, with or without knowledge.
This would seem to make adding this package a breach of the Social
Contract, clause 4. Getting your users executed un-necessarily is, it's
true, a very idealist thing to do, but I can't see everyone signing up
to it.
cheers, Rich.
Footnotes:
[1] Or any other common package type. Editors. MP3 players. Playlist
managers. RSS feed agglomeraters. Xbiff clones.
[2] For my English readers - I did that on purpose
[3] Non-US exists because export of strong crypto from the US is an
illegal act in the US. Hence, Debian has already accepted that
local laws trump idealism.
--
rich walker | Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technical director 251 Liverpool Road |
need a Hand? London N1 1LX | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml
