On Fri, 07 Jan 2005, Peter A. Castro might have said: > On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > On Jan 7 01:28, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > > > Right now I'm looking at the debian packages instead: > > > http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortune-mod > > > http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortunes-bofh-excuses > > > > > > which generate 5 packages: fortune-mod (the binaries), > > > fortunes-min, fortunes, fortunes-off, and fortunes-bofh-excuses. > > > > > > If these look ok to me, do you see any problem with using them instead? > > > (There are also a lot of non-English data files packages that I'm not > > > going to mess with at the moment.) > > > > Personally I'd rather see only one fortune package. Using the -o > > plus rot13 technique should really do it. > > I'm with Corinna here. Fortune does not warrant 5 packages, or even 3. > One package is sufficient. ROT13 and mark the limericks with -o and move > on. Deviating from an already established convention for packaging a > given program is just asking for trouble, and you're artificially making > more work than is necessary. K.I.S.S. !!
Since you must *ask* for the 'rude' version of fortune (fortune -o) before you get any of the alleged offensive material, then what's the problem? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/