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

Re: Debian Pure Blends on www.debian.org

Quoting Ole Streicher (2016-01-25 14:49:25)
> Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
>> One detail: That new page describes metapackage as a minimum 
>> requirement for a blend - I disagree that to be a requirement¹, so am 
>> curious where that came from.
> In my reading this page does not describe a requirement, but a status.

Here is the parts I am talking about:

> "Released" may have different meanings for different blends. At a 
> minimum, it means that the blend has metapackages that were released 
> in a stable release of Debian [...].

What does "at a minimum" mean in the context of "as we can see below 
they all currently happen to be expressed as metapackages"?

> And currently every released Pure Blend *has* metapackages, right?

Uhm, no.  DebianParl exists and is deployed from what Is now in Debian 
stable (it was deployed _before_ stable became stable, and the actual 
deployment uses what is now oldstable - which Boxer can produce by use 
of purely stable packages - none of which are metapackages).

> Maybe, this paragraph could be rephrased as
> "The released Pure Blends have metapackages in the <a 
> href="https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/>stable</a> release of 
> Debian. Some Pure Blends also provide installation media or form the 
> basis of a derivative distribution. See the individual Blends pages 
> for more information."

What do we gain from first sentence above (apart from confusing some 
readers - including myself - wrongly reding it as a definition rather 
than an observation - which then may or may not be true in the future)?

How about dropping first sentence from above?

...and the second sentence I disagree with: A blend is not pure when 
providing installation media which is not the Debian installation 
routine itself.

> A naming question: are there any "non-pure" blends yet?

Yes: DebianParl is currently non-pure, in that it tweaks a few 
configuration files (see bug#311188 for that kind of problem).

Also, as I understand it DebianEdu/Skolelinux sort-of exists in Debian, 
but is only really usable when installed with non-Debian installer 
(again, see bug#311188 - in particular the part where release team is 
convinced that the bug does not affect Debian because it can only be 
triggered when using non-Debian installer).  I can be wrong here, 
though, as I do not pay closely attention to the development of 

> I feel the current convention a bit confusing: The Terminology in the 
> Wiki means:
> | "Blend" is a Debian-based distribution that is, or wants to become, a
> | Pure Blend ... 
> (not mentioning another meaning)
> The new web pages has:
> | Debian Pure Blends are also just called Blends when used clearly in
> | the Debian internal context which makes "Pure" and "Debian" obvious,
> | like on this page.
> This is IMO hard to understand: how can I see what is a "Debian 
> internal context"? Is the Debian Wiki one? Or the Debian [Pure] Blends 
> Pages? At least, I was confused about that when I started to get 
> interested in [Debian] [Pure] Blends.
> I would propose to either consequently stick to "[Debian] Pure 
> Blends", or to remove the non-pure definition from the Wiki and just 
> to make the first paragraph of www.d.o/blends as "Debian Pure Blends 
> (or Blends, for short) are a solution for special groups ...".

IMO we should use only the terms "Debian Pure Blend" and "Debian Blend", 
and only the way they are defined, not try elaborate/simplify their 

If too hard to grasp the two terms, then I agree we should drop the 
non-pure term (*not* drop the pure form, as Andreas has proposed in the 

 - 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: signature

Reply to: