Re: CDD-package inside of Debian or out?
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
So you do agree with me after all, Andreas, that if someone choose to
put the "driving force" behind a CDD based on a desktop (suite:: facet)
instead of a set of needed applications (use:: facet), then we welcome that.
Sure. There is even a debian-desktop but it first drifted to different goals
(try to invent some new package pool like technique which ships more recent
software) and than stalled at all - at least I heard not any announcement
from them since they told me: We are ready in 2 or 3 weeks (which was more
than a year ago).
In other words, we should make our cdd toolkit generic, not tied to
specific facets!
Well we talk about dependencies from certain applications, preconfiguratio,
etc. The things you mentioned fit this as well even if it was not the
primary goal in the first place - we have a do-o-cracy ...
What difference it makes? Well, some facets (like use::) go well
together, byt others (like suite::) may conflict with each other.
Wait until the first conflict occures. Do something to solve the
conflict then.
The point of this whole thread is wether or not it makes sense to always
assume a CDD wants to be within Debian.
Well, at least we agreed to this definition. If we *define* CDD is
completely inside Debian than something outside Debian can not be a
CDD. I would not say that something outside Debian which is using
CDD techniques are not allowed to exist. But to avoid confusion it
would be better to find a different name which does not conflict with
our definition. (The name Custom Debian Distribution is bad enough - I
would not have choosen it, but we have to find a common agreement about
what we are doing and it is hard enough to let people understand what
we want to do. The former name was "internal project" which had some
other drawbacks.)
A CDD for "Cool multimedia" may
choose to include patent-risky compilation options to ffmpeg and
mplayer.
I see no problem if somebody wants to provide this. The part inside
Debian is called CDD and it is completely free so you can do with
it what you like. If you add something it is your decision, but the
CDD remains internal to Debian. Hey, it is just about names and that
we want to tell our fellow Debian developers what we are doing here
*inside* Debian. So we just needed a name for the beast.
A "Best of GNU" CDD may want the GNUstep desktop (without
non-GNU software "polluting" the menus!) and GFDL documentation (which
is considered non-free by Debian).
Ohh no, not again. ;-))
I usually add packages from the non-free part as "Suggests:" to my
meta packages. So as long as GFDL would stay in non-free I will
not have to change anything.
Both of the above CDDs have a large community behind them (just check
out the discussions in -devel about mplayer in Debian). The first one
would "only" need an autobuilder applying compile options based on
tagging (yes, same tags used for package selection and for
picking/adapting config tweaks!). The other would "only" need a
"licensing::" facet added to debtags and -doc packages tagged as they
flood non-free when sarge gets released and the GFDL-vote kicks in.
Well, if debtags supports this kind of tagging, everything is fine.
As I said I see no conflicts in your examples.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: