Web lists-archives.com

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

"Iain R. Learmonth" <irl@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.

This is the sort of thing I'd really prefer not to put into Policy.

Do we feel like we currently have a problem with maintainer judgement in
this area that warrants some intervention?  The original thread was just
an observation about a less-than-ideal naming convention, which is a
simple technical fix.  Figuring out what is and isn't offensive is much
more muddled, and if we don't have a problem, it might not be worth trying
to construct a solution to the harder problem.

Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxx)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>