Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive [and 1 more messages]
control: tag -1 -patch +pending Hello Ian, On Thu, Nov 30 2017, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Is this a proposal/seconding of the modified patch? > > Sure. Thanks for confirming that. > Thanks for keeping on top of this. > > But, I guess you already know that I think that this is excessive > bureaucracy. You do know it's self-imposed ? Indeed, I think you have a point, but I cannot imagine an alternative procedure that wouldn't leave package maintainers feeling beholden to the Policy Editors in a way that would be bad for the project. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Processed: Re: Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive [and 1 more messages]
Processing control commands: > tag -1 -patch +pending Bug #882445 [debian-policy] Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive Removed tag(s) patch. Bug #882445 [debian-policy] Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive Added tag(s) pending. -- 882445: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=882445 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive [and 1 more messages]
Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to
-offensive [and 1 more messages]"):
> On Thu, Nov 23 2017, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I'm not wedded to this second half of the sentence.
>
> Is this a proposal/seconding of the modified patch?
Sure.
> This bug needs one more second to be applied to the Policy repo.
Thanks for keeping on top of this.
But, I guess you already know that I think that this is excessive
bureaucracy. You do know it's self-imposed ?
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive [and 1 more messages]
Hello Ian, On Thu, Nov 23 2017, Ian Jackson wrote: > I'm not wedded to this second half of the sentence. Is this a proposal/seconding of the modified patch? This bug needs one more second to be applied to the Policy repo. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive
Sean Whitton dijo [Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 02:40:54PM -0700]: > Hello David, > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:18:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > >> > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can > >> > be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended > >> > or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default. > > ^^ > > While it seems to be a reasonable explanation for why it should be at most > > a suggests, this half-sentence is hardcoding behaviour of a specific > > package manager in its current default configuration into policy. > >(...) > > Thank you for your feedback. I see what you mean. > > I second the patch revised to exclude this half-sentence. Makes sense. Sean, please note that, having seconded Ian's original wording, I also second this modification. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive
Hello David, On Thu, Nov 23 2017, David Kalnischkies wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:18:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >> > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can >> > be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended >> > or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default. > ^^ > > While it seems to be a reasonable explanation for why it should be at most > a suggests, this half-sentence is hardcoding behaviour of a specific > package manager in its current default configuration into policy. > > "Installed by default" is something policy is speaking of in the context of > priorities only. In the context of dependency relations it is speaking > only about how reasonable it is for the average user of a package to not > install this other package [which can, but doesn't need to be the same]. > > Personally, I would vote for just dropping the half sentence as the use of > Suggests follows directly from its definition – as the whole point of a > maintainer introducing an -offensive package is very likely that it is > "perfectly reasonable" to not install it: Why introducing it otherwise? Thank you for your feedback. I see what you mean. I second the patch revised to exclude this half-sentence. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive [and 1 more messages]
David Kalnischkies writes ("Re: Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive
packages to -offensive"):
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:18:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can
> > > be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended
> > > or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default.
> ^^
>
> While it seems to be a reasonable explanation for why it should be at most
> a suggests, this half-sentence is hardcoding behaviour of a specific
> package manager in its current default configuration into policy.
That's why I said, informally, "should".
> Personally, I would vote for just dropping the half sentence as the use of
> Suggests follows directly from its definition – as the whole point of a
> maintainer introducing an -offensive package is very likely that it is
> "perfectly reasonable" to not install it: Why introducing it otherwise?
I'm not wedded to this second half of the sentence.
> > I second this patch. I suggest we add it as section 3.1.1, i.e., as a
> > subsection to 3.1 "The package name".
>
> [As this is the first subsection I wonder if there will soon be many
> more "rip-off" naming conventions added like python-*, *-perl, … and if
> for style reasons its a good idea to have -offensive be the first]
Aren't these conventions in the python policy, perl policy, etc. ?
Geert Stappers writes ("Re: Bug#882445: possible offensive packages in
suggest"):
> Those are two things:
> - the name
> - the depends
>
> Don't bother on the name.
> Allow "-dark" "-funny" "-religion" and other suffixes.
I'm not sure I follow whether you mean "please do not specify the name
at all" or "I do not mind what you specify". I definitely want to
specify that "-offensive" should be used rather than (say) "-off".
It is true that "offensive" may not always be a good characterisation
of the nature of the issues. That is why I said "usually".
> Be strict on the dependencies. Proper use of
> - must
> - can
> - should
> - may
> as in
>
> } In this situation the "-suffix" package must be Suggested by the core
> } package(s), but may not be Recommended or Depended on, so that it is
> } not installed by default.
I deliberately used "should". Whether to split things out at all is a
matter for the maintainer's judgement. It would be silly to say to
the maintainer "you may decide to split things out, but if you do, you
must not use Recommends". I can imagine hypothetical situations where
Recommends would be appropriate.
That is, there is a spectrum:
less problematic content
just A containing all contentright in some cases
A -Depends-> A-offensive very probably silly
A -Recommends->A-offensive right in unusual cases
A -Suggests-> A-offensive right in some cases
A (no dependency) A-offensive right in some cases
just A, but censored right in some cases
package not in Debian at all right in some cases
more problematic content
We don't need policy to explain why Depends is probably daft here.
The maintainer will figure that out. The bug I mentioned earlier
shows that it is a good idea to explicitly deprecate Recommends. I
doubt the maintainer would have made that mistake if they had seen
policy guidance against it.
But that doesn't mean that it should be utterly forbidden.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:18:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can > > be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended > > or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default. ^^ While it seems to be a reasonable explanation for why it should be at most a suggests, this half-sentence is hardcoding behaviour of a specific package manager in its current default configuration into policy. "Installed by default" is something policy is speaking of in the context of priorities only. In the context of dependency relations it is speaking only about how reasonable it is for the average user of a package to not install this other package [which can, but doesn't need to be the same]. Personally, I would vote for just dropping the half sentence as the use of Suggests follows directly from its definition – as the whole point of a maintainer introducing an -offensive package is very likely that it is "perfectly reasonable" to not install it: Why introducing it otherwise? There might be a point in mentioning "Enhances" here, but that could come off as offensive if it is suggested explicitly that offenses can enhance a package… which might even be an argument to drop the entire dependency relation regulation sentence [as even in the best case it is a repeat of §7.2 while in many others a prime example of potentially offensive out-of-context quotes waiting to happen]. (I have no opinion on the topic of -off vs -offensive itself; as a non- native I was always kept off by those packages due to being put off by -off – but I will not be pissed off if -offensive takes off. SCNR) > I second this patch. I suggest we add it as section 3.1.1, i.e., as a > subsection to 3.1 "The package name". [As this is the first subsection I wonder if there will soon be many more "rip-off" naming conventions added like python-*, *-perl, … and if for style reasons its a good idea to have -offensive be the first] Best regards David Kalnischkies signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive
Hi, On 23/11/17 00:18, Sean Whitton wrote: >> So to be concrete, how about this: >> >> N. Packages with potentially offensive content >> >> As a maintainer you should make a judgement about whether the >> contents of a package is appropriate to include, whether it needs >> any kind of content warning, and whether some parts should be split >> out into a separate package (so that users who want to avoid certain >> parts can do so). In making these decisions you should take into >> account the project's views as expressed in our Diversity Statement. >> >> If you split out (potentially) offensive or disturbing material into >> a separate package, you should usually mark this in the package name >> by adding "-offensive". For example, "cowsay" vs >> "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can >> be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended >> or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default. I second this patch. Thanks, Iain. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive
Sean Whitton dijo [Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:18:37PM -0700]: > > So to be concrete, how about this: > > > > N. Packages with potentially offensive content > > > > As a maintainer you should make a judgement about whether the > > contents of a package is appropriate to include, whether it needs > > any kind of content warning, and whether some parts should be split > > out into a separate package (so that users who want to avoid certain > > parts can do so). In making these decisions you should take into > > account the project's views as expressed in our Diversity Statement. > > > > If you split out (potentially) offensive or disturbing material into > > a separate package, you should usually mark this in the package name > > by adding "-offensive". For example, "cowsay" vs > > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can > > be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended > > or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default. > > I second this patch. I suggest we add it as section 3.1.1, i.e., as a > subsection to 3.1 "The package name". > > Iain, Gunnar and Steve: could you repeat your seconding of this patch to > this debian-policy bug, please? Kindly quote the above text that you > are seconding. > > For posterity, the rest of the discussion outside of this bug may be > found here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/11/msg00209.html Right. I second this patch. Thanks, Sean, for doing the administrative steps! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive
Package: debian-policy Severity: normal Tags: patch User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Usertags: normative Hello Ian, Iain, Gunnar, Steve, On Wed, Nov 22 2017, Ian Jackson wrote: > So to be concrete, how about this: > > N. Packages with potentially offensive content > > As a maintainer you should make a judgement about whether the > contents of a package is appropriate to include, whether it needs > any kind of content warning, and whether some parts should be split > out into a separate package (so that users who want to avoid certain > parts can do so). In making these decisions you should take into > account the project's views as expressed in our Diversity Statement. > > If you split out (potentially) offensive or disturbing material into > a separate package, you should usually mark this in the package name > by adding "-offensive". For example, "cowsay" vs > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can > be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended > or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default. I second this patch. I suggest we add it as section 3.1.1, i.e., as a subsection to 3.1 "The package name". Iain, Gunnar and Steve: could you repeat your seconding of this patch to this debian-policy bug, please? Kindly quote the above text that you are seconding. For posterity, the rest of the discussion outside of this bug may be found here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/11/msg00209.html -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
