On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 02:18:10PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > John Buttery wrote: > > * On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 08:33:46AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > > > >>Andrea Bolognani wrote: > >> > >>>I guess you mean libacme-brainfck-perl. > >> > >>Yes. > >> > >>>I think there is no need to use such a trick, since the program's name does > >>>contain no offending words. > >> > >>Well, l-b-p's description doesn't either, yours does to date. > > I'm not really sure I follow you here. My intention was to suggest that > most people taking offence could likely live with description similar to > the one of libacme-brainfck-perl, or at least wouldn't really be harmed > by two package descriptions of that type over one. I find "brainf*ck" and "b*tchx" somewhat harsh myself, and so renaming doesn't bother me. But I think it would f'ing suck if you couldn't apt-cache search for the package by its real name, so it makes me happy that l-b-p provides a (virtual) package with that name, and that apt-cache search DWIW.
Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
