Re: CoC policy for package contents (was: Re: Can the community team remove packages or kick me out for not removing packages?)

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