[HEADS UP] remove ddate(1) command from rawhide

[Jon Ciesla]

> 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 at 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