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

Re: Debian Pure Blends on www.debian.org


On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 01:47:47PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> >> "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"?
> I have read in in the way you explain here with the context.

This is the criteria for it being considered a released Pure Blend. You've
stated that DebianParl does not have metapackages but also that it is not a
Pure Blend. I do not see then that this definition is violated. I can reword
it to say released as part of a stable Debian release instead, and drop the
reference to metapackages in particular, but we can't just start making up a
new definition for released.

> >> "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?
> When it is not true, it should be changed. It is written as the landing
> page for newcomers, and they (I would say) care about the status, not
> the definition. The status may change, and the web page should change as
> well then.

At this time, I do not believe it's not true. If you can give me an example
of a *Pure Blend* that is part of a stable release that does not use
metapackages, then the sentence can be changed.

> > ...and the second sentence I disagree with: A blend is not pure when 
> > providing installation media which is not the Debian installation 
> > routine itself.
> So if I provide an (installable) live-Image of Debian-Astro, I would
> "un-pure" the Blend?

No, you can provide a Debian Live Installer just like Debian Hamradio and
Debian GIS (I was actually going to ask if you would like me to build this
for you) and it is using tools within Debian stable and the official Debian

> >> 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).
> I see a contradiction between the goal of a Debian Pure Blend -- namely
> to provide a system "that is configured to support a particular target
> group out-of-the-box" (Wiki definition of a Pure Blend) and not tweaking
> the configuration.
> But if DebianParl is unfit for being a released Pure Blend, it can't be
> taken as example for the first section of the web page.
> Would it be a solution to add a section for Non-Pure Blends with
> DebianParl and DebianEdu? (and FreedomBox?) This may also have the room
> to explain why they are not Pure.

I would be happy to define these as Remixes. We can add a section for those
if we can agree on that.

> > 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.

One of the problems I find over and over talking to people is that no one
knows what a Pure Blend is. My definition is potentially more restrictive
than other definitions. I have not found a clear definition in documentation

> If we drop the non-pure term, then DebianParl and DebianEdu are not
> Blends anymore, right? Would sound a bit silly to me...

Yes, we could call them Remixes instead. I think that would work well and we
can list them on the Blends page, and it can be a future goal of those
projects to become Pure Blends though currently they are prevented from
doing so for some reason or another.

DebianParl differs greatly from Debian Astro/GIS/Hamradio/Med in a number of
ways, I think naming should reflect that.



Reply to: