Web lists-archives.com

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

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 maintainer. All
> subsequent questioning of rating would be done via bug reports against the
> particular package.

I think this is gross overkill for the very small number of packages
for which it is relevant.  Encoding the situation in the package name,
and/or describing any issues in prose in the Description, seem like
proportionate responses.

> * Rating set within debian folder - maybe rating file.
> * Seen on packages.d.o, PTS and query by apt etc. for package.
> * Should not be auto installed as a recommends etc.

If you think I am wrong then the next steps would be:

1. Make a properly documented technical proposal for where this
  metadata would be found and how it would be transferred and what
  format it would be in.

2. Write proof-of-concept patches for at least some of apt-search,
  apt-get install, p.d.o, etc., to allow the user to specify a policy,
  and implmenet that policy.

3. Write proof-of-concept patches for at least some packages,
  adding the metadata.

I think even (1) is far too much work.


Ian Jackson <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.