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

Re: Debian Pure Blends on www.debian.org

Quoting Iain R. Learmonth (2016-01-25 19:04:06)
> 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.

Ah, right.  I got confused by the subtitle "Released Blends" skipping 
the word "pure", but realise now that really that whole page wants to 
only talk about pure blends, not blends in general.

On a page only about pure blends, DebianParl and DebianEdu should be 
excluded - also from "unreleased" section.  Only when testing or 
unstable contains a pure form of the blend does it make sense to list it 
on a page only talking about pure blends.

DebianEdu because bug#311188 is still open, and DebianParl (*not* 
because the EU deployment includes non-free blobs, but) because it 
includes tweaks rendering it non-pure.

> 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.

Please remove the paragraph redefining "blend" from its current meaning 
of "pure or non-pure blend" to somehow mean "only pure when in a context 
of Debian".

...and then please either...

  * Explicit state "Debian Pure Blend" everywhere
  * Remove DebianEdu
  * Remove DebianParl


  * State "Debian Pure Blend" and "Debian Blend" as appropriate
  * Add DebianParl as released blend

Independent from above cleanup, yes the very concern that I raised in 
this thread will be properly addressed IMO by rephrasing to not describe 
how blends are implemented - i.e. avoid the word "metapackage" because 
even if unintended I find it highly likely that it can easily be misread 
as describing how blends _should_ be made rather than just how _some_ 
blends _are_ made.

> > > ...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?

We need to discuss that further, yes.

Bug#311188 demonstrates how something that is a severe violation of 
Debian Policy becomes a minor issue when wrapped so as to only be 
triggered from non-official rebuild of install medium.

> 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 installer.

The reason I distinguish between pure and non-pure is that I want a name 
for installations that can safely be handed over to others as "Debian" - 
i.e. users who did not themselves tweak their system should be able to 
file bugreports against Debian, without risking angry responses from 
developers realizing too late they waste time on broken systems hacked 
beyond what Debian supports.

 - 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: