Re: State of Debian blends, notes and questions on debian-ezgo
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 06:41:55PM +0000, shirish शिरीष wrote:
>
> @Andreas - thank you for sharing the link about the debconf 13 talk.
You are welcome. :-)
> It was good because it gave me some insight but not enough as to what
> came first i.e. the idea of debian pure blends or Debian med ?
We had Debian Junior in 2002, Debian Med in 2002 and Debian Edu merging
together with Debian in 2003. I realised that while each internal
project has a different topic they are using a similar technique. Thus
I tried to factorise those techniques and the **idea** of Blends was
born. At DebConf 3 in Oslo we agreed to call this idea not "Debian
Internal Project" any more but found the new name "Custom Debian
Distributions" (to make a difference to pure technical internal
projects).
>From the beginning I disliked that name since I considered it misleading
but I lost a vote with other contributors and had no better name
suggestion myself. You will not believe how hard I had to fight against
this misleading name (those who invented the name drifted soon after to
other projects ;-P ). In 2008 I lost my nerves and decided to rename
again. BTW, my prefered name again was not the choice we have now but I
think it is way better than Custom Debian Distributions. The only
common thing is that the vote was also quite dominated by
non-contributors. ;-P
> I am/was looking at the Debian Pure blend page history [4] and the
> time-stamp of that says 2008
Under this name, yes.
> while Debian Med seems to have much more
> longer history [5] circa 2004.
The Debian Med mailing list exists since January 2002[at1]. I have no
idea why the official announcement on debian-devel-announce vanished -
at least there is a response to it so it[at2] was also send in January
2002. :-)
> I see you joined the team or at least
> started contributing via wiki since 2007 [6].
I admit I'm always quite reluctant about the Debian Wiki. It is badly
maintained (at least the pages I'm interested in) and to blame myself:
I'm not doing much against it. If I have the choice between fixing a
bug in a package or editing the Wiki I always decide for the bug (and
there are always bugs open :-P) The fact of the always outdated Wiki
motivated me to write the tasks pages with package information since
these are auto-generated and thus *really* up to date.
> If there is a
> possibility of giving some insight of what started before it would
> make it easier for me to share the same in a chronological order.
Regarding cronology Chapter 4. Existing Debian Pure Blends[at3]
might be of some help since it lists the existing Blends (aaargggg,
Debian Astro is missing - I need to update!)
> I do
> have some questions for debian-med but would probably ask them in the
> debian-med mailing list as it would be more pertinent there.
Feel free to ask whatever you consider interesting. I'm super happy if
somebody would fix the lack of proper and up to date information.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[at1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2002/01/threads.html
[at2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2002/01/msg00062.html
[at3] https://blends.debian.org/blends/ch04.html
> 4. https://wiki.debian.org/DebianPureBlends?action=recall&rev=1
> 5. https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMed?action=recall&rev=1
> 6. https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMed?action=recall&rev=42
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: