Re: draft guidelines for official CD images
* Holger Levsen (email@example.com) [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
* "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.