On 21/07/25 at 19:22 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > I can think of a few more examples that caused controversies in in the > past: > - A system load monitor, about 20 years ago, that used a cartoon of a > lady who was progressively undressed as the computer got warmer.
It was named 'hot-babe'. Those themes for hot-babe could serve as test data points for a policy on the content of packages: http://caca.zoy.org/wiki/hot-babe > - A toolkit called "weboob" (for "WEB Outside Of Browser") that had > devolved into a bunch of juvenile boob jokes #906119, #907199 > I *also* think that it's not a problem if software in Debian does such > things optionally, if explicitly enabled. But perhaps not everyone > agrees with that, and that's fine. The line is difficult to draw: fortunes-*-off, hot-babe or weboob are/were optional in Debian (as in no user is forced to install them, and they probably don't/didn't have reverse-depends). So it would be OK to keep them in Debian? Maybe a difference should be made between packages whose main purpose is to expose users to offensive content (fortunes-*-off, hot-babe), and packages which do something else but force users to be exposed to offensive content (sudo, weboob). But then I don't know what to do with that difference. Lucas
