Hello all
El 26/07/18 a las 23:32, gregor herrmann escribió:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:34:19 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>
>> Can you explain what makes you feel uncomfortable about it?
>> Is it (semantics of) the word itself or context?
>
> For me: The context.
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018
Martin Steigerwald writes ("Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?"):
> My question was more aimed what members of or contributors to the
> Debian project can do to improve the current situation, cause as you
> say Debian that means the people behind it cannot control
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 02:35:19PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
I think it would be worthwhile to file a BTS bug so it can be easily
tracked which versions of the package we distribute still carry this
bug, so I will do that.
Done here:
On Thursday, 26 July 2018 09:53:08 CEST Sune Vuorela wrote:
> The woob command would then lookup the "original" name in the mappings
> file and exec the correct one with remaining args.
> This is probably fairly low maintenance once created, but it still has
> the bad names on the file system,
Quoting gregor herrmann (2018-07-27 05:32:20)
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:34:19 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>
> > Can you explain what makes you feel uncomfortable about it?
> > Is it (semantics of) the word itself or context?
>
> For me: The context.
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 03:09:45 +0200,
On July 27, 2018 3:09:35 AM GMT+05:30, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
>
>On 7/26/18 11:32 PM, gregor herrmann wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:34:19 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>>
>>> Can you explain what makes you feel uncomfortable about it?
>>> Is it (semantics of) the word itself or context?
>>
On 7/26/18 11:32 PM, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:34:19 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>
>> Can you explain what makes you feel uncomfortable about it?
>> Is it (semantics of) the word itself or context?
> For me: The context.
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 03:09:45 +0200, Adam
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:34:19 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Can you explain what makes you feel uncomfortable about it?
> Is it (semantics of) the word itself or context?
For me: The context.
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 03:09:45 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> What's wrong with looking at boobs?
On 15109 March 1977, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> It is covered. We explicitly list a number of things that we consider to be
>> of higher priority than arbitrary compatibility with third parties (free
>> software; our users' needs; creating a developer community that is welcoming
>> to all people,
Marc Haber writes:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:25:11 +0200, Ole Streicher
> wrote:
>>Obviously we renamed packages (which made us incompatible with the rest
>>of the world) already if needed. Rememver iceweasel or icedove?
>
> Didn't we ship aliases? Are firefox and thunderbird commonly invoked
>
Wow - we should wait a few days and there will be more comments about
this issue than users of this package. Impressive.
To be honest - i don't really like the "humor" and the names of the
package and the applications, but i fear that this heatened discussion
does more harm than the package
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 05:16:52PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:25:11 +0200, Ole Streicher
wrote:
Obviously we renamed packages (which made us incompatible with the rest
of the world) already if needed. Rememver iceweasel or icedove?
Didn't we ship aliases? Are firefox and
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:25:11 +0200, Ole Streicher
wrote:
>Obviously we renamed packages (which made us incompatible with the rest
>of the world) already if needed. Rememver iceweasel or icedove?
Didn't we ship aliases? Are firefox and thunderbird commonly invoked
from scripts that might be
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 02:44:56PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Do, Jul 26, 2018 at 01:59:08 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Stephan Seitz - 26.07.18, 11:10:
> > > I don’t understand the problem. No one forces anyone to keep the
> > > package in Debian. Upstream made clear it isn’t
On Do, Jul 26, 2018 at 01:59:08 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Stephan Seitz - 26.07.18, 11:10:
I don’t understand the problem. No one forces anyone to keep the
package in Debian. Upstream made clear it isn’t interested in
changing the names.
The point is that it currently is in Debian,
Stephan Seitz - 26.07.18, 11:10:
> On Do, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:32:34 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> >Adam Borowski - 26.07.18, 03:09:
> >> I for one don't protest inclusion of the Bible in Debian, despite
> >> that text having been the cause of 100M deaths, nor Quran with its
> >> 75M. I>
>
On Do, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:32:34 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Adam Borowski - 26.07.18, 03:09:
I for one don't protest inclusion of the Bible in Debian, despite that
text having been the cause of 100M deaths, nor Quran with its 75M. I
That text did not *directly* cause anything. It were
On Mi, Jul 25, 2018 at 09:25:11 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Obviously we renamed packages (which made us incompatible with the rest
of the world) already if needed. Rememver iceweasel or icedove?
Yes, I do. And I remember the problems with this renaming. And do you
remember the reason? This
In other news for Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:16:42AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland has
been seen typing:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 08:46:29AM +0100, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> > I honestly don't see any connection to religion here.
> It's a tenuous (and frankly ridiculous) attempt to demonize a position
>
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 08:46:29AM +0100, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
On Jul 26 2018, Adam Borowski wrote:
That "objectification" is an invention of your particular religion[1].
I honestly don't see any connection to religion here.
It's a tenuous (and frankly ridiculous) attempt to demonize a
On 2018-07-26, Marc Dequènes wrote:
> I also like the idea of a single binary with subcommands, would be
> easier than remembering all the commands.
>
> But as I said unless upstream does agree on something, we're not going
> to maintain an alternate version.
Would it be sufficient small
On Jul 26 2018, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> Promoting objectification of half of the world's population doesn't
>> count as constructive social interaction in my understanding.
>
> That "objectification" is an invention of your particular religion[1].
I honestly don't see any connection to religion
Adam Borowski - 26.07.18, 03:09:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:55:50AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:56:10 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:18:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > It is covered. We explicitly list a number of things that
Adam Borowski writes:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 09:25:11PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Marc Haber writes:
>> > Staying compatible with the rest of the world is not covered by our
>> > core principles?
>>
>> Obviously we renamed packages (which made us incompatible with the rest
>> of the
Adam Borowski - 25.07.18, 21:56:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:18:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 07:05:33PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > > Staying compatible with the rest of the world is not covered by
> > > our
> > > core principles?
> >
> > It is covered. We
Quack,
On 2018-07-25 22:35, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
I think it would be worthwhile to file a BTS bug so it can be easily
tracked which versions of the package we distribute still carry this
bug, so I will do that.
Agreed, we should ensure all fixes are in all versions and I'd be glad
to
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:55:50AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:56:10 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:18:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > It is covered. We explicitly list a number of things that we consider to
> > > be
> > > of higher
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:56:10 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:18:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > It is covered. We explicitly list a number of things that we consider to be
> > of higher priority than arbitrary compatibility with third parties (free
> > software;
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 09:25:11PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Marc Haber writes:
> > Staying compatible with the rest of the world is not covered by our
> > core principles?
>
> Obviously we renamed packages (which made us incompatible with the rest
> of the world) already if needed. Rememver
Marc Haber writes:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:40:25 -0700, Steve Langasek
> wrote:
>>On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:15:52PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
>>> He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without upstream
>>> consent.
>>
>>Your "should not" does not follow from any of Debian's
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:18:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 07:05:33PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > Staying compatible with the rest of the world is not covered by our
> > core principles?
>
> It is covered. We explicitly list a number of things that we consider to
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 07:05:33PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:40:25 -0700, Steve Langasek
> wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:15:52PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> >> On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:49:55 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> >> > accept that they are authoritative
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:40:25 -0700, Steve Langasek
wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:15:52PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
>> On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:49:55 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>> > accept that they are authoritative in this regard. Therefore, you should
>> > rename the offensive parts
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 04:15:12PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
As a pre-amble side-note, some issues of offending users with homophobic
language have been addressed upstream, and I think we should aim to
carry these patches in stable/testing/unstable. (I don't think we have
processes for
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:15:52PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:49:55 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > accept that they are authoritative in this regard. Therefore, you should
> > rename the offensive parts of this package.
> He certainly should NOT rename any parts of
* Stephan Seitz [180724 09:49]:
> On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:19:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > Stephan Seitz writes:
> > > He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without
> > > upstream consent.
> > Why not? I can see an argument about not confusing users (though
> >
On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:19:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Stephan Seitz writes:
He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without
upstream consent.
Why not? I can see an argument about not confusing users (though
transitional packages / a weboob-offensive could be made for
* Stephan Seitz [180724 07:25]:
> He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without upstream
> consent. If upstream doesn’t approve (and it seems that these names are part
> of upstream’s working culture), then the other choices are removing to
> package or keeping it as it is.
Or,
Stephan Seitz writes:
> On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:49:55 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>>accept that they are authoritative in this regard. Therefore, you should
>>rename the offensive parts of this package.
>
> He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without
> upstream consent.
On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:49:55 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
accept that they are authoritative in this regard. Therefore, you should
rename the offensive parts of this package.
He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without upstream
consent. If upstream doesn’t approve (and
Hi,
"Marc Dequènes (duck)" writes:
[snip]
> So apart from objectification of women, but without
> instrumentalization or degrading message, I was not able to find
> serious consequences. As much as I would prefer things to be different
> (I already told upstream in the past) I don't feel I
No need to cc me. I am subscribed to the list.
I proofread this message several times as it is important to me to make
it clear as best I can. It may still have typos or syntax mistakes.
Ian Jackson - 23.07.18, 20:43:
> Martin Steigerwald writes ("Re: Should the weboob package stay in
Miriam Ruiz - 23.07.18, 12:10:
> 2018-07-23 8:23 GMT+02:00 Martin Steigerwald :
> > Ben Hutchings - 23.07.18, 02:34:
> >> On Sun, 2018-07-22 at 23:34 +0200, Romain Bignon wrote:
> >> > On 22/Jul - 13:14, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
> >> > > And, as far as I know, everyone who's replied on this thread
>
Martin Steigerwald writes ("Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?"):
> It would be good if women involved in the Debian project would speak up
> here.
Many people have already explained why this is difficult.
But it is not necessary to have personal testimony f
2018-07-23 8:23 GMT+02:00 Martin Steigerwald :
> Ben Hutchings - 23.07.18, 02:34:
>> On Sun, 2018-07-22 at 23:34 +0200, Romain Bignon wrote:
>> > On 22/Jul - 13:14, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
>> > > And, as far as I know, everyone who's replied on this thread
>> > > (myself
>> > > included) is a man -
19 juillet 2018 17:15 "Jonathan Dowland" a écrit:
> Thanks Marc for raising this on -devel. I am the person who originally
> brought attention to the package on -private. I did so there, because
> I did not feel confident in doing so in a public space initially. It
> wasn't my intention to
Ben Hutchings - 23.07.18, 02:34:
> On Sun, 2018-07-22 at 23:34 +0200, Romain Bignon wrote:
> > On 22/Jul - 13:14, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
> > > And, as far as I know, everyone who's replied on this thread
> > > (myself
> > > included) is a man - so I think we should be particularly careful
> > >
On 2018-07-22 13:14 -0400, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2018, Wookey wrote:
>
> > I think they're funny, which I think is what was intended by
> > upstream. I enjoy a gratuitous boob-or-handjob mention as much as the
> > next 14 year old.
>
> As much as the next 14-year-old _boy_.
On Sun, 2018-07-22 at 23:34 +0200, Romain Bignon wrote:
> On 22/Jul - 13:14, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
> > And, as far as I know, everyone who's replied on this thread (myself
> > included) is a man - so I think we should be particularly careful with "it
> > doesn't bother me."
>
> You're right,
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:28:32PM +0200, Romain Bignon wrote:
> On 22/Jul - 10:15, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote:
> > > but... https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/merge_requests/232
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this out. It's not in yet and I've just asked upstream
> > to clean this mess.
>
> This
On 22/Jul - 10:15, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote:
> > but... https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/merge_requests/232
>
> Thanks for pointing this out. It's not in yet and I've just asked upstream
> to clean this mess.
This is a merge request, not accepted.
In the meantime, a commit has been merged
On 7/22/18 2:50 AM, Wookey wrote:
> On 2018-07-21 12:54 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:34:19PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>>> I refuse to judge the matter with my feelings.
>> Rationality has a place, but so do feelings.
>>
>> The names in this package are
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018, Wookey wrote:
I think they're funny, which I think is what was intended by
upstream. I enjoy a gratuitous boob-or-handjob mention as much as the
next 14 year old.
As much as the next 14-year-old _boy_.
Even if Debian takes the position that the package name (and
Hi Marc,
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 09:39:51AM +0900, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote:
> - is it degrading?
> « These are acts that, even if done by consent, convey a message that
> diminishes the importance or value of all human beings. »
> This does no apply here as there is no depiction of act or
Quack,
On 2018-07-22 19:16, Rens Houben wrote:
In other news for Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 09:39:51AM +0900, Marc Dequènes
{ A whole lot of refuge in technicalities snipped }
There was no "technicalities". I decided to explain my decision and not
base it on vague feelings or emotional outburst
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:16:22PM +0200, Rens Houben wrote:
> No one in this entire thread was asking that this software be removed.
>
> Instead, all along the suggestion has been "Rename some of the programs
> because Debian is not run by a bunch of puerile twelve-year-olds who get
> their
In other news for Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 09:39:51AM +0900, Marc Dequènes (duck)
has been seen typing:
> Quack,
> It seems the project is leaving the decision about Weboob onto me, so I'll
> try to address it.
{ A whole lot of refuge in technicalities snipped }
> So apart from
Dmitry Smirnov writes:
> With all due respect, you did not research the matter enough and neither
> am I... Just as I was checking online dictionaries to see if I've missed
> something as terrible as you say, I've found that "boob" is a reference
> to "embarrassing mistake" or "foolish or stupid
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 09:39:51AM +0900, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote:
> Quack,
>
> It seems the project is leaving the decision about Weboob onto me, so I'll
> try to address it.
>
> The diversity statement tells me we should welcome others even if they are
> very different and with conflicting
Quack,
On 2018-07-22 09:52, Mike Hommey wrote:
but... https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/merge_requests/232
Thanks for pointing this out. It's not in yet and I've just asked
upstream to clean this mess.
\_o<
--
Marc Dequènes
On 2018-07-21 12:54 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:34:19PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > I refuse to judge the matter with my feelings.
>
> Rationality has a place, but so do feelings.
>
> The names in this package are offensive, plain and simple.
Quack,
It seems the project is leaving the decision about Weboob onto me, so
I'll try to address it.
The diversity statement tells me we should welcome others even if they
are very different and with conflicting opinions but nothing beyond
that. There is no policy part that I found helpful.
On Friday, 20 July 2018 9:01:45 PM AEST Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Dmitry is not claiming to disagree; he's stating that he doesn't
> understand.
Excuse me but I have not stated that I don't understand.
Disagreement is not the same as not understanding.
I think our (only) disagreement is
On Saturday, 21 July 2018 9:02:15 PM AEST Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> It's not an "uncomfortable reference to (a) part of (the) human body".
> It's a wholly inappropriate reference to a part of the *female* body
> often associated with sex, which therefore is a mysogynistic and
> demeaning reference
Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?"):
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:34:28AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > The current policy[1] leaves it up to the maintainers to make this
> > judgement and I don't think a discussion on -devel@ w
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:02:23PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 July 2018 7:43:39 PM AEST Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > weboob itself is fine, maybe. But there are various other binaries
> > inside the weboob packages that aren't, at least not so much:
> >
> > wetboobs
> > handjoob
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:34:28AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Matthew Vernon writes:
> > We shouldn't need to have numbers of people having to justify why a
> > particular thing is offensive before we (as a project) try and fix
> > it.
>
> That works if Debian was a non-diverse groups where
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:34:19PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> I refuse to judge the matter with my feelings.
Rationality has a place, but so do feelings.
The names in this package are offensive, plain and simple. Are other
names offensive? Maybe. Does that mean we should do nothing until
Jonathan Dowland writes:
> I think we ought to more concretely determine what changes we wish to
> take place. To do this properly I need to spend more time looking at the
> package in more detail, so what follows is just my initial feelings. I
> welcome feedback. For now I suggest we hash it
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:44:01PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
I can't help but understand your message as "if you don't agree, you
haven't understood" which I don't find very helpful.
Dmitry is not claiming to disagree; he's stating that he doesn't
understand.
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan
Hi Jonathan,
On Fri, 2018-07-20 at 07:47 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:34:19PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > On Friday, 20 July 2018 12:50:12 AM AEST Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > > Have you read Matthew Vernon's reply to OP in this thread? Does
> > > that not
> > >
On Fri, 2018-07-20 at 13:34 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Friday, 20 July 2018 12:50:12 AM AEST Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > Have you read Matthew Vernon's reply to OP in this thread? Does that not
> > explain it?
>
> Matthew did not convince me. IMHO his explanation is weak as it boils down
Matthew Vernon writes:
> We shouldn't need to have numbers of people having to justify why a
> particular thing is offensive before we (as a project) try and fix
> it.
That works if Debian was a non-diverse groups where everyone had similar
views on what is offensive. In that case the maintainer
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:34:19PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
On Friday, 20 July 2018 12:50:12 AM AEST Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Have you read Matthew Vernon's reply to OP in this thread? Does that not
explain it?
Matthew did not convince me. IMHO his explanation is weak as it boils down to
On Friday, 20 July 2018 12:50:12 AM AEST Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Have you read Matthew Vernon's reply to OP in this thread? Does that not
> explain it?
Matthew did not convince me. IMHO his explanation is weak as it boils down to
"there are many problems like this and we should fix this
Thanks Marc for raising this on -devel. I am the person who originally
brought attention to the package on -private. I did so there, because
I did not feel confident in doing so in a public space initially. It
wasn't my intention to irritate upstream by talking behind their back,
so I'm sorry
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:02:23PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
I see your point and I agree with you yet renaming might still be
inappropriate and/or ineffective. I'd like to see stronger
justification for replacing uncomfortable reference to part of human
body because why should it be
On Thursday, 19 July 2018 7:43:39 PM AEST Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> weboob itself is fine, maybe. But there are various other binaries
> inside the weboob packages that aren't, at least not so much:
>
> wetboobs
> handjoob
> boobsize
> boobtracker
>
> like, seriously.
Yuck... :( Incredibly
Hi Dmitry,
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 05:40:46PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 July 2018 10:50:20 AM AEST Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I think this naming, and the iconography, is all very unfortunate.
> > IMO it is not compatible with Debian's Diversity Statement (which as
> > ou know
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 05:40:46PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Here is an example: I'm aware of legal human name that is offensive and
> inappropriate in another language. Nobody in the right mind would use
that might be possible, but it is not a appropriate comparison in this
case:
On Thursday, 19 July 2018 10:50:20 AM AEST Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think this naming, and the iconography, is all very unfortunate.
> IMO it is not compatible with Debian's Diversity Statement (which as
> ou know was ratified by an overwhelming majority of DDs).
You are overreacting. Name of the
Marc Dequènes (duck) writes ("Should the weboob package stay in Debian?"):
> It has been brought to my attention that this package, its name and the
> name of the binaries and further content was deemed offensive. This was
> already raised in the past (~2012 II
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 22:03:53 +0900, Marc Dequ?nes (duck) writes:
>It has been brought to my attention that this package, its name and the
>name of the binaries and further content was deemed offensive.
'deemed' by whoever...right, that's very authoritative and i'm
highly impressed. not.
i'm for
On 7/18/18 7:03 AM, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote:
> It has been brought to my attention that this package, its name and the
> name of the binaries and further content was deemed offensive. This was
> already raised in the past (~2012 IIRC) but the package was reintroduced
> and has been in the
On 15102 March 1977, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote:
> It has been brought to my attention that this package, its name and
> the name of the binaries and further content was deemed offensive.
> This was already raised in the past (~2012 IIRC) but the package was
> reintroduced and has been in the
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:03:53PM +0900, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote:
> (This is a followup of the thread started on debian-private. This is not a
> private matter at all, and we should have discussed this openly from the
> start.)
No! It's bad enough that this kind of massive flamewar is
Matthew Vernon wrote:
>
>Part of the problem, I think, is that there are just so many of these
>"little things", and that together they make up an environment that is
>hostile to folk who aren't male (and, often, white and heterosexual). If
>it was just one "little thing" then perhaps it wouldn't
"Marc Dequènes (duck)" writes:
> It has been brought to my attention that this package, its name and
> the name of the binaries and further content was deemed
> offensive. This was already raised in the past (~2012 IIRC) but the
> package was reintroduced and has been in the archive since then.
Quack,
(This is a followup of the thread started on debian-private. This is not
a private matter at all, and we should have discussed this openly from
the start.)
It has been brought to my attention that this package, its name and the
name of the binaries and further content was deemed
89 matches
Mail list logo
