RFC: An app category for "adult" material?

[Martin Bagge / brother]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 2011-11-21 11:17, Peter Brett wrote:
> Adding the "Adult" category to the spec is clearly the Wrong Thing,
> both technically and semantically, and seems to me to be an attempt
> to misuse the .desktop file Categories field in an inappropriate
> way.

This adult category thing is censorship in the worst form possible.

A bad name.
Something that upstream developers will add when they think it is
appropriate.
Or the distribution will have to patch the desktop files to add this
where they think it is appropriate.
This will not work.

Either the upstream developers have a different grasp of where the line
for a "adult"-mark goes or the distribution have their low barrier.
In the end the users are left to either patch their system because they
have a different standard for what would be considered adult material
than what both the distribution and the upstream developers have.

> Is it possible to back this change out?

Yes please.

- -- 
brother
http://sis.bthstudent.se
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJOyiuNAAoJEJbdSEaj0jV7oF4H/0/BBg/Y0gcejSxoy0/hvLFk
lN6+H7rMKzdj36Obo79c0V0uYLlAkUg1FwOzck84pfL1N+3WwbuCMNrP9WApzpna
JLdI3m7s7zmlr7j0wLpsCLiIWIlUDPyd7nJIIWEJeMIRkom12xMXGtg7T3A3Sl48
X4gWa/aLWNsNPtpWsYFEDn45gYybzO1293c7aKB8MwwftONL7nUdE+n7hQjc/PfY
9mhPDHOIub8WAAhnh0umfDOF8Wsa3zb/CslZi6oOgS4xi4XGHPiBmaUjsItT08zz
hTQ7s6oRvyUXRR9qK6XN6zxUD71SNqhnFb4XfFgiuZONw8sp3+PwNX6w4ANHFhE=
=tDfT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----