[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Pre-BOF CDD ideas

On Sun, 30 May 2004, Cosimo Alfarano wrote:

> A secondary (but not less important) target is to modify views that
> users have of Debian, in the near future I hope we'll have inside the
> Debian project:
>  - main Distruibution, the Debian we currently know
>  - custom Distruibutons, as a particular views of Debian:
>    the main Distribution filtered through the lens of particular
>    users.
> Substantially: Debian as a CDD itself.
In Valencia Free Ekanayaka expressed this in a very illustrative manner
as an object model which I tried to summarize in the third paragraph of


(I hope the URL is correct because people.d.o is down - I just mean the
 introduction section of the CDD paper.)

> And since Debian will base itself on CDDs, fully supporting them, there
> will be a way to let CDD to release asyncronously from MDD.
This is also covered more or less in the updated version of the CDD
paper.  I think your ideas are a little bit more concrete than it is expressed
there and we should settle down with a "way of choice" selected from
the proposed ways of different people which I tried to summarize or
just find a further one.

> /debian/
> /debian-<CDD>/
>     pool/ -> <link to the official MDD pool/, since the packages are the
>               same>
>     dist/
>         stable/
>         unstable/
>         testing/
>             main/
>             contrib/
>                 binary-<arch>/
>                     Packages
>                     Release
>                     ...
Which is more or less the last suggestion of


> Pro: lets CDDs having their own stable/testing/unstable distro, produced
> in the some way of MDD, but with asyncronously and with slightly
> different rules.
Exactly.  I think I will add your detailed considerations to the doc
once I'm settled down from my vacation.

> Alternatively:
> /debian/
>     pool/
>     dist/
>         stable/
>         unstable/
>         testing/
> 	    main/
> 	<CDD>/
>             main/
>             contrib/
>                 binary-<arch>/
>                     Packages
>                     Release
It would be great if these alternatives could be discussed and some
conclusion could be found at DebConf4.

> Probably sections (main/contrib/non-free) may be changed to CDD flavours
> (like ( med-bio -> dist/med/bio/ ), but I'm not sure about policy.
If you ask me I'd prefer the first suggestion because I expect much
more trouble here.

> I'm talking of a special flavour/patched version of package X, and must
> be done in the fairest manner possible (no versioning problem, no any
> sort of hijacking, and so)
I have doubt's whether this might be reasonable for large packages.
It would only make sense in the way
    package-xy-flavour1 (depends package-xy-common)
    package-xy-flavour2 (depends package-xy-common)
which also needs the agreement and willingness of the maintainer of
package-xy.  So I see no big practical use for this package flavours
because the above seems to be stupid and needs more maintenance than
trying to go with sane configuration solutions.

> It's STRONGLY needed that any maintainer will collaborate with the CDD
> staff guys and be fair with their decision about bug requests :)
Yes.  This can be fixed by the CDD-world-domination-issue which was
proposed by Enrico. ;-))

Kind regards


Reply to: