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 DebianEdu/Skolelinux. > 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 purpose. 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 past). - 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