Conclusion of fortune(6) discussion

Jamie Landeg-Jones jamie at
Wed Dec 6 01:57:11 UTC 2017

Benno Rice <benno at> wrote:

> Firstly, there were a number of suggestions that removing fortune et al
> from base is some form of complete deletion. It’s not. It’s merely that
> FreeBSD stops distributing it as part of our releases. The code is still
> available in our Subversion history.

That's hardly an argument - you could apply that to anything!

Personally. I don't give a rats-arse either way about fortune(6), but agree with
others who were uncomfortable that one person just decides to whip out a command
that isn't causing problems or security issues without warning.

I'm not even talking necessarily about discussions with us plebs; in my 20+ years
of FreeBSD, whilst just about everything is discussed, I can't once remember one
person just arbitarily removing a command without warning like that.

And, you seem to be agreeing about discussion and announcements,


> Nothing in what I was proposing precluded creating a port.

and here:

> Which brings me to point number two: My discussion was about base, not
> ports.

and here:

> There should absolutely be a
> discussion whenever anyone proposes moving code out of base and that

But then you wrote:

> And my final point: This was never about political correctness. I am not
> apologizing for making this move without discussion as any discussion

So, you say things should be discussed, yet you're not apologising for the
fact you made the move without discussion, which sounds like you just
broke your own guidelines.


More information about the freebsd-arch mailing list