On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:32:01 -0500, JC (Jon) wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:42:18 +0300, KL (Kalev) wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/29/2011 02:54 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'd like to remove:
> >> >
> >> > ddate - converts Gregorian dates to Discordian dates
> >> >
> >> > command from rawhide (F17). IMHO this crazy command is used by
> very
> >> > very small minority of Fedora users.
> >> >
> >> > Comments?
> >>
> >> Please do. This isn't really something that should be dragged in for
> >> every single Fedora installation as part of the util-linux package.
> If
> >> someone actually misses the command, it can always be resurrected
> later
> >> in a subpackage.
> >
> > Someone? A single Discordian follower already, for example? Perhaps
> that
> > person will volunteers as the maintainer of a separate package then?
> > Or wait, if it's just one, why include it in the distribution?
> >
> > Based on
> >
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism#Discordian_calendar
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius
> >
> > the ddate command and its manual's level of relationship to a religion
> (or
> > a joke religion) enters a grey area with regard to the packaging
> policies:
> >
> > | Some examples of content which are not permissable:
> > |
> > | Comic book art files
> > | Religious texts
> > | ...
> >
> >
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Code_Vs_Content
>
> The Julian and Gregorian calendars are also of religious origin.
Apples and oranges.
Do you find anything like in the "SEE ALSO" section of "man ddate"
also
in "man date"?
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
That may be (both are human constructs, it's like say "hey, that's
made up
word!", but no, I don't. My point is simply that while it is extremely
silly code, it is in fact code provided by upstream. It's still
maintained, is of a valid license, and I don't see a valid reason to break
with upstream here. If you can convince upstream to split it out or drop
it, great. If not, and there isn't a compelling disk space or security
argument, I really don't see why this should be dropped. I'm looking for
a clear example of demonstrable harm. It's 14k of silliness, not a
rootkit.
-J
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie