On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 01:38:43AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
no, please, no.
policy should document technical terms.
whatever else we might come up to deal with the "real world" (that is
more complicated than that, eg think tibet, taiwan and china, or $foo)
should not be included in -policy.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andrius Merkys
* Package name: spglib
Version : 1.10.1
Upstream Author : Atsushi Togo
* URL : https://atztogo.github.io/spglib/
* License : BSD-3-Clause
Programming Lang: C
Description : C library for crystal sym
Hi,
On 22/11/17 08:49, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> This is about standardising the label we use for marking offensive
> content, not about defining what is or isn't offensive. I'd argue that
> "-offensive" suffix proposal was a technical term.
Currently, as far as I can tell, sudo is build without
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:10:20AM +, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> Currently, as far as I can tell, sudo is build without PC_INSULTS. We
> should probably rename the sudo package to sudo-offensive.
>
> This option is defined in the source code as "Define to 1 to replace
> politically incorrect i
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:49:11AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> This is about standardising the label we use for marking offensive content,
> not about defining what is or isn't offensive. I'd argue that
> "-offensive" suffix proposal was a technical term.
so you're proposing to add this techn
Hi,
On 22/11/17 11:17, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> That seems like unnecessary complexity and work, to me. I'd be OK with
> either letting the package be as it is now, or to build it without the
> "non-PC" insults. Doesn't seem worth it to have two packages for this.
I may have been not entirely seri
On 14864 March 1977, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> This option is defined in the source code as "Define to 1 to replace
> politically incorrect insults with less offensive ones." and so by not
> defining this option, the package is explicitly built to be offensive.
> Obviously we should allow for a tr
Hi,
On 22/11/17 11:31, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 14864 March 1977, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
>> This option is defined in the source code as "Define to 1 to replace
>> politically incorrect insults with less offensive ones." and so by not
>> defining this option, the package is explicitly built to
Iain R. Learmonth writes ("Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to
-offensive"):
> I may have been not entirely serious in that example. As the insults are
> not enabled by default, most users will never see them, though they are
> compiled in.
>
> If there was to be a policy, it should incl
Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to
-offensive"):
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:49:11AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > This is about standardising the label we use for marking offensive content,
> > not about defining what is or isn't offensive. I'd argue that
>
Hi,
On 22/11/17 12:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
> So to be concrete, how about this:
>
> N. Packages with potentially offensive content
>
> As a maintainer you should make a judgement about whether the
> contents of a package is appropriate to include, whether it needs
> any kind of content wa
On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 08:49 +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 01:38:43AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > no, please, no.
> >
> > policy should document technical terms.
> >
> > whatever else we might come up to deal with the "real world" (that is
> > more complicated than t
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:23:12AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:49:11AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
This is about standardising the label we use for marking offensive content,
not about defining what is or isn't offensive. I'd argue that
"-offensive" suffix proposal
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
> In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should be
> done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A self regulatory rating done as part of a
> social policy and administered by the particular packages maintainer. All
> subsequent
Am 22.11.2017 um 14:29 schrieb Paul Wise:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
>
>> In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should be
>> done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A self regulatory rating done as part of a
>> social policy and administered by the
Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>So to be concrete, how about this:
>
> N. Packages with potentially offensive content
>
> As a maintainer you should make a judgement about whether the
> contents of a package is appropriate to include, whether it needs
> any kind of content warning, and whether some parts
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 02:37:57PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 22.11.2017 um 14:29 schrieb Paul Wise:
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
> >
> >> In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should
> >> be
> >> done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A sel
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 02:37:57PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
I agree. Using the package name for labelling feels odd.
It also seems like a reasonable and practical solution, more so than
some overly complicated whizz-bang tagging scheme that the target
audience will likely not understand.
On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 21:29 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
>
> > In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should
> > be
> > done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A self regulatory rating done as part of a
> > social policy and adm
Phil Wyett writes ("Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive"):
> In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should be
> done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A self regulatory rating done as part of a
> social policy and administered by the particular packages ma
"Iain R. Learmonth" writes:
> If there was to be a policy, it should include something along the lines
> of "maintainers should tend towards the least offensive build options"
> but worded in such a way that compiler optimisations and hardening
> options are not subject to an offensiveness rating
Ian Jackson dijo [Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:32:40PM +]:
> So to be concrete, how about this:
>
> N. Packages with potentially offensive content
>
> As a maintainer you should make a judgement about whether the
> contents of a package is appropriate to include, whether it needs
> any kin
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 21 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Policy in this case would document the convention of using -offensive
> for packages that are split along those lines *by the maintainer*. I
> agree that we certainly shouldn't attempt to define what is and isn't
> offensive in Policy and leave t
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Usertags: normative
Hello Ian, Iain, Gunnar, Steve,
On Wed, Nov 22 2017, Ian Jackson wrote:
> So to be concrete, how about this:
>
> N. Packages with potentially offensive content
>
> As a maintainer
24 matches
Mail list logo
