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

Re: Debian Pure Blends on www.debian.org

Hi Iain,

I agree with you on the first parts ...

"Iain R. Learmonth" <irl@debian.org> writes:
>> 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

The question was a bit rhetorical for Jonas: He stated 

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

where "second sentence" refers to

>>>> Some Pure Blends also provide installation media or form the basis
>>>> of a derivative distribution.

I thought that he means that providing installation media or being a
basis for a derivative distribution make a Blend non-pure. This I wanted
to discuss on an example. Maybe Jonas could comment on what he means

> (I was actually going to ask if you would like me to build this for you)

Yes, sure! I'd be happy with that.

>> 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.

What if the section heads were

Released Pure Blends

Upcoming Pure Blends (or Unreleased Pure Blends)

Other Blends (with an explanation for each why it is not pure)

We can rename it at any time then.

>> > 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
> though.

I find the Wiki definition quite clear. 

>> 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.

That sounds reasonable to me; I would just be a bit conservative to
introduce new names like "Remix".

Best regards


Reply to: