Web lists-archives.com

Re: Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive




Hello David,

On Thu, Nov 23 2017, David Kalnischkies wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:18:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> >   "cowsay-offensive".  In this situation the "-offensive" package can
>> >   be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended
>> >   or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default.
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> While it seems to be a reasonable explanation for why it should be at most
> a suggests, this half-sentence is hardcoding behaviour of a specific
> package manager in its current default configuration into policy.
>
> "Installed by default" is something policy is speaking of in the context of
> priorities only. In the context of dependency relations it is speaking
> only about how reasonable it is for the average user of a package to not
> install this other package [which can, but doesn't need to be the same].
>
> Personally, I would vote for just dropping the half sentence as the use of
> Suggests follows directly from its definition – as the whole point of a
> maintainer introducing an -offensive package is very likely that it is
> "perfectly reasonable" to not install it: Why introducing it otherwise?

Thank you for your feedback.  I see what you mean.

I second the patch revised to exclude this half-sentence.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature