On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:09:20AM -0400, Walber Zaldivar Herrera wrote:
The doubt was about using the "blend" term I asume CDD term is a better approach to our project. We are inspired on Debian blends projects and try to keep so close to Debian as we can.
Please do use the "blend" term, and then just avoid adding "pure" too unless it really is.
CDD is the older term which turned out to mean different things for different people. So even if it seems to you that CDD more closely matches what you are trying to do, then beware that most likely that other term really is not a closer match, but is just more elastic: You know yourself what it is you are working on, so a term should not only be descriptive to yourself but more importantly to others that you want to tell what you are working on - if you say "we are building a CDD" then maybe they hear "we are building a Debian-internal sub-distro", maybe they hear "we are building a custom distribution" and maybe they hear "we are building a CD snapshot of a set of Debian packages".
If instead you say "we are building a Debian Blend" and perhaps even clarify that "it will however not be a Debian Pure Blend, as we need this and that non-Debian parts" then I believe you are less ambiguous.
When we have our first functional version our plans are releases after Debian stable releases, our goal is to get the first before Squeeze and get a Lenny based but we have no problem if Squeeze becomes our first base :)
Looking forward to hear more :-D - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature