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

Re: Could be considered a *Debian Blend* a CDD with packages from diferent repos



Jonas Smedegaard escribió:
Hi Walber,

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 01:53:40PM -0400, Walber Zaldivar Herrera wrote:
Hi

I'm working on SiXdeb a project from a group of cuban folks to generate Cuba oriented Debian Blends or CDDs. We have a doubt: could be considered a *Debian Blend* a CDD with packages from diferent repos?

For example: A lenny CDD with OpenOffice from debian-backports repo and multimedia codecs from debian-multimedia repo

Good question!

Short version: No - mixing across branches is unpure!


Slightly longer: I would say "no", but I suspect that Andreas Tille or others might disagree. :-)



One of the fundamental aims I see with the Blends is that of being able to fully state that "it IS Debian".

Debian do not officially ship a distribution mixing in packages from backports.org or debian-volatile.


One test is "would I risk upsetting a DD if filing a bugreport on this?"

Some Debian developers only want to deal with bugs in "their" packages, not any derivatives of them, and only when used in its intended environment: As part of Unstable as of same date or later, or as part of a later Testing or Stable, when the package eventually reached there.



PD: Sorry for my English, it isn't so good as I wich

Don't worry, your english is fine!  No problem understanding you :-)


When I coined the term "Debian Pure Blend", it was intended as a user-friendly marketing term, with the more exact techincal term being the abbreviation DDD, meaning "Debian-packaged, Debian-composed, and Debian-released". With that I meant to make it indisputable that not only should both source and binary packages be the ones accepted into Debian, but also the relationship - i.e. the year long process of deciding which packages works reliably together, and the way the packages are installed (currently on CD or DVD), should be the Debian ways.

One thing I wanted to avoid was packages grabbed from Testing rebranded as any breed of "Stable Debian".

Another thing I wanted to avoid was installing "sleeping agents" in Debian approved packages, which was triggered only when installed through custom install methods"[1]


  - Jonas

[1] Debian-Edu currently use this approach to do things that violates Debian Policy: The violations are impossible to do using official Debian install methods so Debian Release Managers have decided to lower severity of bugreports against it, but I fear the day a Debian-Edu user files a bugreport against a Debian package stating that they use a pure Debian system, when in reality they used an unpure install method triggering unusual (and potentially fatal in corner cases) behaviour.


Hi Jonas,

Ok, I'm agree, I suposed a Debian blend should be made from *pure* official Debian. But there is another additional doubt if we include a package that isn't in Debian repos, except those metapackages that we need anyway (free-pascal and lazarus, for example) the distro couldn't be called a blend anymore?

Thanks Walber

--
><JHS/o>
+-<=<==|

(o_
//\    Linux Registered User
V_/_   #480598

Comunidad de Software Libre en Cuba
http://www.softwarelibre.cdr.cu

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments


Reply to: