Re: let's etch a common way of using debtags for CDDs and beyond!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 20-05-2005 01:19, Micah Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2005, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>This is different from the current Skolelinux approach - the packages
>>base-config-skolelinux, cfengine-skolelinux, locale-config-skolelinux
>>and webmin-ldap-skolelinux is currently in Debian.
>>
>>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)".
>
>
> We should be clear about what this means if this is changed. For what
> purpose does debian-edu create packages in Debian, and for what
> purpose are other CDDs wanting to do this? The answer to this question
> seems to be for the purpose of being able to turn a normal Debian
> installation *into* a CDD by installing that package.
Bingo! Last weekend in Gütersloh I raised the point of "don't consider
yourself the end of the road, but part of the process". It was aimed at
Skolelinux, but fits well into this general discussion of CDDs as well:
The term CDD is used for the idea of metapackages taken to the extremes
of being able to generate a complete (live bootable?) official
sub-distribution.
The term CDD is also used for another idea of using Debian as the core
for more extreme goals not possible within Debian (Gibraltar and others)
- - like adding software conflicting with DFSG or smoothing the overall
system - either by hacking around in package configuration routines
(Skolelinux) or more drastically by rebuilding packages (Ubuntu).
Both uses of CDD thinks in "giving back to Debian", but only the first
makes sense to aim at "putting itself within Debian".
So I propose not changing the definition, but instead naming these
different goals of CDDs:
CiDD: Custom (inside) Debian Distribution
CoDD: Custom (outside) Debian Distribution
Why those names? Because the first is seen as family, a child, a kid
(CiDD), from Debians point of view - while the second is seen as having
cut (CoDD) itself off of the Debian family.
:-)
>>For inspiration look at how the package "logcheck" maintains grep
>>expressions of loglines of daemons for (ultimately) all packages:
>>Initially expressions are added by the maintainers of logcheck, but a
>>formal way for each package maintainer to include own expressions is
>>provided, and as soon as package maintainers starts maintaining their
>>expressions themselves the corresponding logcheck-maintained expressions
>>are dropped.
>
>
> In my mind this *is* an inspiring model. It is inspiring because the
> users of the logcheck package are motivated to file bugs against a
> package when a log regexp is missing, so the package maintainer gets
> pushed by the users to maintain these logcheck entries, and the user
> is pushed by the actual use of the logcheck package. It is a very
> healthy system, and I agree it should be considered as a model to
> apply here.
In reality the logcheck developers are maintaining most regex'es
themselves - only package maintainers actively adopting regex'es for
their own packages lower their central maintainance burden.
Still I find the approach seems sane to me.
>>>- Discuss the idea of "Adopting" tags, that is having people who take care of
>>>the correctness of the list of packages associated to a given tag (which
>>>another point of view compared to checking that all tags associated to a
>>>package are correct) (Suggested by Erich Schubert)
>>
>>I fail to locate it right now, but sounds like the collaborative
>>proof-reading process of "Den Store Danske Ordliste" (the large danish
>>wordlist) project may be interesting for this. Do anybody know of
>>english documentation of that or of similar web-collaborative projects?
>
>
> There is a similar collaborative proof-reading project called the
> Distributed Proofreading Project (http://www.pgdp.net), which assists
> Project Gutenberg in proofreading OCR scanned books, so that there can
> be a reliable electronic copy. They complete approximately 230 books
> (entire books) a month, 3 to 5 thousand pages a day. Its really a cool
> project. You are given an image of scanned text, and the OCR's
> rendition of that page, and you compare, very carefully, the two, and
> make corrections where necessary, and then submit them. A second-level
> person (who has done 50 or more first-level projects) then
> double-checks your work, and then passes it on. Perhaps this is what
> you are referring to?
I was not referring to something specific, just expected something
non-danish to exist as well :-)
The danish dictionary proof-reading system may actually be closer to
what we want, as it seems simpler - like "voting for words":
Register with the system, and you get a small chink of random words. For
each word you mark if it is a proper danish word. The current danish
dictionary consists of all words "voted" as proper danish by at least
two persons. Parallel to the "stable" releases you can choose to instead
use "unstable" releases consisting of fewer words but "elected" by more
people.
Replace "words" in the above with "tags" and you have a proof-reading
system for tagging of packages.
- 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
iD8DBQFCjgLin7DbMsAkQLgRApI3AJ9ZEBcWzI3+DLcjmrx3M6TMEONjYQCfQdvf
0Zs3VzDXDB/vZrnqRAMG1is=
=m296
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: