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

Re: custom vs. derivative (Re: packages.gz corrupt, missing packages and other issues)



Hi,

On Thursday 03 April 2008 19:06, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Debian Edu and Skolelinux are two names for the same thing.
> Says who?
> Any links?

Good question, actually and surprisingly (to me). Our etch release manual says 
so, but not very clearly. I believe we have discussed and decided that in 
some IRC meeting, but I'm offline atm and cant check.  Added to my todo 
list :-/

> > Some people say that Debian Edu is the project name and Skolelinux is the
> > distribution, but this is not really right, it's more to make a
> > distinction where there really is none. This is done, because many people
> > cannot cope with one thing having two names.
> Well, I definition can not be right or wrong. 

Neither the world nor definitions are black and white. Definitions might be 
right or wrong in physics (I doubt it already there...), but certainly in 
social sciences definitions can also be very inaccurrate or more accurate.

> A statement based on a 
> definiion has the features true or false. 

Wrong. :-D

> So define clearly what you mean 
> first.  I guess we are running circles over and over because we have one
> weak definition for a badly choosen name and many staments here in this
> thread are a result of different interpretations of several terms by
> several people. 

I've tried to say it several times in Merida and now I'll try again:

IMO we should throw away the old definition and old name and "start from 
scratch". This will save us from running in circles. And we dont even have to 
start from scratch as many good ideas came up on this list recently.

> So that part is what we would call CDD from the current definition.

For the purpose of finding a new name and definition, please stop refering to 
the old one. Write something down (you can very easily do this by 
using "cp"), call this "your new definition" and then lets discuss this - 
though I would definitly suggest and prefer if you could change some terms 
after copying from the old text :-)

Then you can explain what *you* mean by this *new* definition. And we can 
point out ambigitious and other improvements so that this new definition  
becomes as clear as possible.


regards,
	Holger

Attachment: pgpjvHv0aIrTQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: