Hi,
On Tuesday 01 April 2008 21:54, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I normally regard this as impolite as well, but the answer I intended
> to give was actually given in this thread:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-custom/2008/03/msg00038.html
Thanks.
There you explain that this lists purpose is defined on
http://lists.debian.org/debian-custom/ which states: "Developing common
infrastructure for custom Debian distributions
People on this list work on the challenges common to all custom Debian
distributions, ensuring that the tools and procedures developed are shared,
making the most efficient use of our energies."
So, this list is not about "Custom Debian Distributions" as defined in
http://wiki.debian.org/CustomDebian or in your paper - this list is about
custom Debian distributions. A small, but IMO important difference. (Which
contributes to all this confusion and is probably wrong. (Or not.))
(Rationale: a custom Debian distribution is any distribution somehow custom
made out of Debian (and maybe other ingredients as well). A Custom Debian
Distribution follows the definitions of this term.)
> http://people.debian.org/~tille/cdd/ch-about.en.html#s-CDD
> and perhaps I have to give it a better structure.
That, and probably it should also be moved to a more "authoritive" place (=not
under people.d.o), IMO by now CDDs are an established part of Debian and not
a study object of yours (only) anymore :)
> OK, so there is room for improvement. I admit that I'm not really a
> fan of Wikis because they tend to bit rot at a certain point in time -
I agree, wikis need to be taken care off. But this is just the same as with
your paper in svn :-) But in difference to something in svn, contributing to
a wiki is usually much easier.
> >> OK. What would be your conclusion to do?
> > Move on.
> Doing what?
Developing Debian. If some people understand CDD differently and use our
tools, to build ubuntu^wsomething different without contributing back, let
them.
It might "hurt" them and/or us in the long run (because energy is not invested
as good as it would be possible), but you cannot force contributions.
> No. I would like to use a term that is clear enough to be understood
> correctly without reading any definition.
I think this sentence is the main reason why I pressed "reply" to this mail. I
cannot agree more than to this. (!!!)
> Yes. IMHO, Jonas just found a very good three word "definition" we
> could even use as name.
I think that term, Debian internal subdistribution, is too much ("sperrig"
would be the german word). Debian Internal Distribution would be better, IMO,
but still doesnt sound nice (to me).
> And believe me (I do not want to aks you for
> browsing the archive because it would be a large waste of time), I was
> running several circles in the mailing list and the wiki with several
> people but the issue was always blured and never really clarified in
> whatever doc we tried to clarify things. (I hope my frustration about
> these issues is readable inbetween the lines.)
Actually, I dont think there is anything wrong if people use CDD tools (be it
cdd-dev, simple-cdd or whatever) to build their distro (within Debian or
without) and discuss this here. As long as not the whole distro is discussed
and developed here :-)
regards,
Holger
Attachment:
pgptHP4XpFC_B.pgp
Description: PGP signature