Debian is a distribution which prided itself on its policy, in spite of technical requirements. Discussions on what init system might be best (even when quite vocal) could be settled on the basis of technical considerations, but discussion on what policy is more suitable just go on for ever with the content to noise ratio going to zero fairly quickly. This is also the reason why I avoid debian images: I just do not want to have to suffer all the implied bickering.
In an ideal world, it would be possible to simultaneously follow all of the local bylaws and good common sense. To "spite the developer in favor of the user" is just as counter-productive and illogical as presuming to be able to supply goods without any supplier - even more so, on such a minor issue as a screensaver (dura lex sed lex: stable means obsolescing if not obsolete).
The solution are clear: either a) remove the package (why bother? it is not as if it is the kernel or some essential part of the infrastructure; yet this breaks the promise of stability) b) rename the package and patch (breaking the promise of stability once more) c) update the files (the horror: what about any other package which might be in a similar position? how to guarantee fairness and who can interpret the law in this case?) d) spite the developer and patch the file e) follow the letter of all licenses and requests by providing a new package which installs a binary patch on the compiled object code as to remove any call to the offending code. This would be unsatisfactory for everybody (which counts as fairness for some measure of "fair) but 1. would NOT alter the stable package 2. would NOT alter the source code of the relevant file 3. would remove the message 4. could be provided with source (i.e. a script patching the .o file in a reproducible way) What is there to complain?
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at nvidia. Ex-biologist. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon and Bluesky.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-04-05 03:07 pm (UTC)In an ideal world, it would be possible to simultaneously follow all of the local bylaws and good common sense. To "spite the developer in favor of the user" is just as counter-productive and illogical as presuming to be able to supply goods without any supplier - even more so, on such a minor issue as a screensaver (dura lex sed lex: stable means obsolescing if not obsolete).
The solution are clear: either
a) remove the package (why bother? it is not as if it is the kernel or some essential part of the infrastructure; yet this breaks the promise of stability)
b) rename the package and patch (breaking the promise of stability once more)
c) update the files (the horror: what about any other package which might be in a similar position? how to guarantee fairness and who can interpret the law in this case?)
d) spite the developer and patch the file
e) follow the letter of all licenses and requests by providing a new package which installs a binary patch on the compiled object code as to remove any call to the offending code. This would be unsatisfactory for everybody (which counts as fairness for some measure of "fair) but
1. would NOT alter the stable package
2. would NOT alter the source code of the relevant file
3. would remove the message
4. could be provided with source (i.e. a script patching the .o file in a reproducible way)
What is there to complain?