Hi, On 22/11/17 11:17, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > That seems like unnecessary complexity and work, to me. I'd be OK with > either letting the package be as it is now, or to build it without the > "non-PC" insults. Doesn't seem worth it to have two packages for this.
I may have been not entirely serious in that example. As the insults are not enabled by default, most users will never see them, though they are compiled in. 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. I agree with the idea that Debian should generally not be offensive to its users unless they've asked for it, but also think that asking for it should be available to users. Maybe we can experiment with some voluntary guidelines for maintainers to work out any bugs *before* we merge it with policy? Thanks, Iain.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
