Re: New name: Call for opinions
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
--> gathered a lot of suggestions - but we do not have to INcrease
the number, we have to DEcrease the number to 1
Reading at "Thingy1" there, it seems to me that the definition bundles
together two things:
1. The produced distribution (The thing that is now called CDD)
Well, the problem is: Neither Debian Med nor Debian Junior who actually
are the first projects that implemented the idea behind what was called
CDD do produce any "distribution". The idea is to make Debian fit for
usage in Medicine or for small children. So the term "distribution" is
actually wrong for what we want to provide. It is part of the work to
produce an installation media / live CDs to enable easy installation of
the subset of Debian that is in the focus of the project - but to make
sure that we talk about the same thing please define the term "Distribution"
2. The team that produces it.
I admit that we do not really have something that is worth naming
a real definition - but in fact forming a team working on the project
is a really important part of the work.
Could you please try to explain to me what is the point in such an
effort? What does it include that I can't easily implement in a simple
extra preseed script for an installation media?
Well, I tried to explain that in
What I have in mind is *definitely* more than a simple script. That's
one reason why I'm against the name CDD because it seems to be simple
to build a CDD (using SimpleCDD ;-)). So if actually SimpleCDD goes
with the name it is perfectly fine and fits the name.
Furthermore, the more independent infrastructure this team has, the
closer it is to "Thingy2". A distribution that includes Stable and a
number of packages backported from Testing is clearly a Thingy2.
Yes - I can not parse the connection between this and the previous
paragraph or any of my mails.
In short, I suspect that the bluring between the original and the
percieved meaning of CDD is also because when you have a team that has
its own goals and time tables, and its own infrastructure, it tends not
to be a strict subset of Debian.
This somehow reaches into the question: Can I help Debian without
beeing a maintainer. Yes, it is perfectly possible to work on the
goals of the project in question without beeing a Debian maintainer.
Or did I missunderstood you?