Re: "purity" package

[Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>]

On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Craig Sanders wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Susan G. Kleinmann wrote:
> 
> > I searched for an email on debian/devel posting a notice to package
> > this "program" for Debian, but couldn't find it.
> 
> so?  there's lots of packages which have been packaged without any
> 'intention to package' announcement.

This action was always intended to avoid duplicate effort, in any case,
not to act as an entry gate to the distribution.

> 
> > I hope the project is not following a policy that anyone can package 
> > anything that is freely distributable _in the name of the Debian project_
> > without approval by the developers.
> 
> why not?  that's what it's always been so far.  why change that now?
> 
As far as I can tell, the only criterion for entry into the archive is
that the package be accompanied by a changes file that is pgp signed by a
valid maintainer.

> > If not, then this package's presence in the distribution should at least
> > be up for discussion now. 

Every package in the distribution is "up for discussion" at any time.
Usually that discussion centers around some technical issue.

 In that context, I believe that the critical
> > criterion on which packages should be evaluated for inclusion in 
> > the Debian distribution is the extent to which they serve the project's 
> > stated goal to "provide a freely distributable, full-featured, Unix-like 
> > operating system, based on the Linux kernel and the GNU development tools."  
> 
I must confess, that these restrictive definitions for what should go into
the Debian distriution (outside those issues addressed by guidelines)
disturb me more than the content of any package in the distribution.
Making decisions about entry based on whether or not the program is this,
or that (games, books, etc) is a quick way toward a less than useful
distribution.

I know I am late to this party. I was out of town at relatives celebrating
a somewhat religious holiday. (If food plays a part in your religion ;-)
I have read all the contributions to the various threads following the
"purity" question, and I must say that you have all managed to cover the
field with a layer of garbage thick enough to obscure any possible
solution.

First, Bruce; While I agree with you that using a live rodent for a
suppository doesn't qualify, in any known culture, as a sexual act, I
don't know what that has with this package (asside from the fact that such
things are discussed somewhere in the package). As I understand it, the
software in question runs some kind of a script based question and answer
session. I assume that it has some capability for keeping track of
responses for later analysis. Would you ditch the gif package just because
it can be used to view data found on alt.tasteless?

Second: Even though I can appreciate that the content of these scripts
(not the entire set available in the package, BTW) are far more
objectionable than those "objectionable" portions of the fortune package,
I don't see any reason to take a more extreem position with respect to
them. I should also point out that the maintainer of the package has
uploaded a new version that keeps the garbage under the control of the
installer. I don't see any reason to do more than this.

Third: The Bible; I read this book, as a child (at age 12, I, of course,
didn't consider myself a child any more...), from cover to cover, just
like the other books I had been reading (Moby Dick, Treasure Island, King
Solomon's Mines, ...), and found it to be a good read. The story was
interesting, and, in places compelling. (Except for the "begat" section)
I understood, even at that age, that some of the sections that I read
could be considered "pronographic" (and probably read them closer because
of this) by those same adults who quoted other parts of the book to me as
the answer to some philosophical question or other. In retrospect, I
believe that that "reading" of the bible by me was the foundation for my
seperation several years later from that "Christian" faith, but not for
the content issues that have been under discussion here. A "clean" reading
of the Bible, makes it clear that this is a "book", period. Discussions of
"divine inspiration" always failed for me because of incosistant
applications of "first principles". Several bible classes, that I took
later in life, made it clear that many of the "statements" made by the
bible were the result of prejudices or misconceptions on the part of the
"translators" who brought this document together as the King James Version
of The Bible. Many of the "quotes" that are cited that declare
"strictures" against one sexual practice or another are artifacts of this
translation failure. It is the self contradictory citations that are most
often used to "prove" the Bibles position on an issue. I choose to "know"
the creator without such "mediation", while realising that many others
feel much differently on these issues.

Dispite (or possibly because of) the things that I have said, I would be
upset by any policy that restricted documents like the Bible from the
distribution based on the idea that they "have nothing to do with Unix". 

To see what others think about these things, I reference the current Hurd
distribution from the FSF. While this is a development system and a
pre-release product, if you look in the /doc directory of the system as
delivered (in a tarball) you will find two text files. One contains "The
Declaration of Independence" and the other "The Constitution" (both of
them for the US). Some here would ask for such things to be removed as
"irrelivant" to the system, while others will certainly find the documents
"offensive" in one way or another.

While we should protect ourselves against "the slings and arrows of
outragious fortune" this protection should be based on technical issues,
not moral ones. This _is_ an Open Development Model isn't it?

Waiting is,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-_-                                          _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .