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

[Walber Zaldivar Herrera <walber@inmobiliaria.tur.cu>]

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