Re: CDD-package inside of Debian or out? (WAS: Re: let's etch a common way of using debtags for CDDs and beyond!)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 18-05-2005 00:26, Sergio Talens-Oliag wrote:
> El Tue, May 17, 2005 at 10:44:07PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard va escriure:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>On 17-05-2005 16:44, Holger Levsen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In our vision a Custom Debian Distribution is built from one cdd package
>>>per CDD (see http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?CDDTool for more info on that).
>>>That cdd package is not maintained inside Debian but maintained by the CDD.
>>
>>To clarify: While most other CDD work is best passed on to Debian, the
>>actual CDD package is not intended for inclusion in the official Debian
>>archive.
>
>
> That's not my idea, it is just the opposite, any CDD can be included in
> Debian as a single package that only has dependencies on the cddtool runtime
> system.
>
> Of course if a derived distribution prefers to have it's own repository it
> can have its description package outside Debian and use the same tools that
> CDD use, but the idea about Custom Debian Distributions has always been that
> they should be included on the Debian distribution.
That the actual distribution should be included within the Debian? Like
"Debian ships its main distribution consisting of 2-3 DVDs 1st of june
and expects to ship its Skolelinux distribution a few weeks after that"?
My idea is that the moment all parts of a CDD is part of Debian, the CDD
has become irrelevant: The main Debian distribution is then able to do
all of the CDD itself.
I mean - until Debian asks only a couple of non-geeky questions by
default in order to roll out a system usable as a school network,
Skolelinux will continue to generate its own CD-based distro _outside_
of Debian, and while it makes sense to include the _generator_ of CDDs
(cddtool) it does not make sense to clutter the Debian package pool with
"sample uses of the cddtool distro-generator". Those fit better as files
below /usr/share/doc/cddtool/examples/ IMHO.
>>So I suggest changing the current definition of CDD (as described at
>>http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?CustomDebian ) from currently reading
>>"all extras they offer will either become part of Debian, or are
>>temporary workarounds" to add "except what is relevant to the CDD only
>>(selection of packages, unique config tweaks, custom logo and so on)".
>
>
> I believe the definition is right, if it has things outside Debian that are
> never going to be included then we are talking about a Derived Distribution,
> that is all, it can use and share almost everything with the Debian
> Distribution, but it is not 100% Debian.
So Skolelinux is then just a "Cool Debian Derivative" and not a "Custom
Debian Distribution" (due to including SUN Java)?
I believe that's not how they identify themselves (I am referring to
them in third person because actually I agree with your definition even
though I participate in their project).
NB! Please note that I speak for myself here - seeing CDD metapackages
as alien to Debian was not discussed last weekend amongst Skolelinux
developers at Gütersloh.
- Jonas
- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
- Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCi1uIn7DbMsAkQLgRApfYAJ441NC61aQugbIPceKOj+wYJDZwNACcD7pY
Fh+VveF8SrszRP79BWyja44=
=Mao+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: