The future of fortune(6)

[Daniel Eischen]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, Jamie Landeg-Jones wrote:

> And related to that is editting/pruning the message you're replying to ;-)
>
> Anyway, these lists turned into a spam fest of incomprehensible top posts
> and unedited quoting a long time ago. No one (else) seems to care anymore.
> :-(
>
> As for the fortune bikeshed, I think there are 2 seperate issues that have
> been raised, and conflated.
>
> 1) Whether the offensive datafile should have been removed.
>
> 2) The potentially POLA, unannounced, undiscussed, arbitary decision of
>   someone to make such a change on a whim.
>
> Some reactions to the latter have been taken as responses to the former.

And considering that -base is being pkg'ized, shouldn't have the
question been "should we keep it in base or move it to ports"?
It'll be a package regardless, and just [supposing] because it's
in -base doesn't mean it gets installed by default.

Not much of an opinion on fortune(6), though sad to see most of it
culled.  But perhaps future Danish axings should wait and see how
pkg-ized base plays out?  Ask where do we want to maintain it, base
or ports; it can be optionally installed either way.

And is history saved when moving things from base to ports?

-- 
DE