-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05.04.2011 21:24, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > I can't help but think that these package names and descriptions might be > offensive to parts of the Debian community. Would Debian really be serving > it's users by including these packages as is?
I tend to agree, or at least I thought the same as I read the proposed package names. On the other hand pornview lives happily since a decade in Debian (ITP [2]). On the other hand please see discussion for "hot-babe" [3] as well. [1] http://packages.debian.org/search?searchon=sourcenames&keywords=pornview [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=167488 [3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=283578 - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll GnuPG Key-ID: 0x8408D4C4 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNm3D6AAoJELBdpXvEXpo9efwP/R5Gc/KowYyJyPUrrjbXYuwe F6JFl+SSsFoqQ0f5FtdmZ8dn5Lgh/Z8X5g/UBujMPfm537+6CfK/5iA2L5Pes08E YYi9Gsv3UutC0Eo9KyCHroPxGMx/2mY+LjLeyRmRu0N0lvXo2Xl5ZjXjDal50KiB rKYP26u98fx+b4D4XkfgYEBSH2ADzFi3UCrDqpEt3fyO7ksIaYa+0WbQ764cyJ8w c60g5IZxTakcTZ4mFSCgqFYeGGPGL/rfQO3M1u4DO6RIfKMHMPcEmsir2RAmwxUZ w3jIJ8PmXfhZgWZ/BdS/aepGFv8Lp0IqzzuDPHE93z+mM/yZSjgi9woagHfTvYT3 btc9dE4DRWPliSWKAgIkpMaMTBiGh4AQD3NISiYjKU+BQQ8+Pkh0er4YIvMkwzva IFpMTbkzD21tpTUeRh8cCIEH+P9HDg0FCqRJZtH1N5hCaW8MpGD5vbW1p9y6ieXQ 63eQD9JZyMAvr97gQaq0gBPQcd50u3A81/++cHieqpGv5uc8XV9gEe4Pau+Vz45f Sm9VqLk41GNX6v52QTbYG/Zd4RhR5cf7HvOi8wqYoQdhadTJUyMaBRhuJv4FWxB4 N1B9lblEmOAEn4HksMHFfkil4MI5633UrsCDtxATBp6FZ5jgEwx2iECCpR/ENDNV cWJQu48Ohk5pZW5Ef6a3 =2p+y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
