Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:24:56 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: "A. Wilcox" <AWilcox@wilcox-tech.com> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The future of fortune(6) Message-ID: <CANCZdfrgTzB-eNwwwgaaK=ZP1774T3G15WaUCPwrfFK1xeMrhA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5A15E921.8000007@Wilcox-Tech.com> References: <faf60558-6657-8c1c-349f-3d4136a917a7@perceivon.net> <CANCZdfqYKFCoP2YZiDL3MjiOs2dRkWQ-LvkztVKB9wT41hbjEQ@mail.gmail.com> <5A15DDFA.8060302@Wilcox-Tech.com> <CANCZdfoteBgZq98msXbSX8qh-4En%2BES5KvN4RvAcUdRUicK2%2BA@mail.gmail.com> <5A15E921.8000007@Wilcox-Tech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:16 PM, A. Wilcox <AWilcox@wilcox-tech.com> wrote: > On 22/11/17 14:44, Warner Losh wrote: > > If there is no political agenda, then moving the entire thing to a > port > > would have been the right thing to do =E2=80=93 including the datfi= les. > > > > > > No. That would also give the project's endorsement to it. Gone is 'no > > opinion at all' we have. > > > And *since* you have decided that "having a port" implies endorsement of > a project, before I archive this thread, here are a few more ports that > you should probably poke portmaster about: > We've removed ports before because we don't believe they reflect well on the project. However, the examples you cite are lame. None of them that I could tell rise to the same level as what we're talking about. In no case, except maybe the fortune ones, does the project curate a number of disparate views that omits other views. Resorting to this extreme level of "what about"ism isn't helpful in having a rational discussion. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfrgTzB-eNwwwgaaK=ZP1774T3G15WaUCPwrfFK1xeMrhA>