*** Please _don't_Cc:_ me when following up to the list *** Sorry for responding late, had a mail hickup on sunday :(
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > it's irrelevant whether other debian developers or users agree with me > or disagree with me about the relative utility of these two packages. > by not censoring packages, by refusing to censor packages, we create > a distribution which is good and useful for everyone - not just those > whose needs are the same as the censors. some find the bible package > useful and i don't begrudge them that - if it makes debian more useful > to them then it is a good thing that it is included. > > we should not be censoring, we should not be saying "the bible is good > but the koran or bhagavid gita or even the anarchist faq is worthless". > or vice-versa. Is it really censoring to keep all non-technical packages out of main? I don't say don't package it nor don't make it available. > if something is free and someone does the work to package it then we > accept it in the distribution. There should be one for the main distribution. Assume I want to go into the CD business providing support for packages in the main dist. No major problem with most of the packages, but I am not willing to support packages with philosophical, political or religious contents. The way it is, I can't say "Support for all of Debian's main dist". My point is, should there be subjective stuff in the main dist? CU Siggy
