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

Re: draft guidelines for official CD images


* Holger Levsen (debian@layer-acht.org) [061014 12:19]:
> On Saturday 14 October 2006 11:10, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > - All "official" packages are the same as on ftp.d.o, additional packages
> >   can be in other directories;
> Do I understand this correctly, that I can make a official debian cd with 
> packages from etch and backports.d.o, as long as the latter packages are in a 
> different directory? I would say "no" but I read your draft differently...

You can make a CD that doesn't need to be named "unofficial Debian CD".
Basically, we have three kind of CDs:

* "Official Debian ..." - that are the CD/DVD-sets created for each
  point release;
* "Debian ..." - that are the ones created under these guidelines;
* "Unofficial Debian ..." - that is what anyone can create anytime

The first and last type are already officially approved that way.

We also already had the second kind of CDs - but up to now, that was a
violation of the CD policy. The second kind can have packages from
backports/... as long as they are clearly seperated and QAed. We already
had that, look at e.g. the Linuxtag DVDs.

Probably the subject of this mail was wrong, accepted.

> P.S: And you could specify the location of the extented README.

Yes, good point.

> Oh, and 
> another point: so live-cds are not official CDs, according to this definition 
> ("All software that ends up on the installed system..."). I think it would be 
> nice to have official live-cds.

These guidelines were not created as "covering everything", but just for
the specific case of "we as Debian don't want to hand out unofficial
Debian CDs". I agree that live-cds would be a good thing.


Reply to: