Hi, On Tuesday 01 April 2008 15:31, Andreas Tille wrote: > > 2. What is the meaning you once gave to CDD, where is it documented? > Easy: Try the first Google hit "Custom Debian Distributions". If in > doubt follow the link I gave in one of these mails in this thread I have > given. There were several active discussion on this mailing list in > the past - feel free to search the archive. Well, I hoped for an answer from you, not a pointer to search engines. The first hit on google for me was http://wiki.debian.org/CustomDebian which says "Custom Debian Distribution (CDD): a subset of Debian that is configured to support a particular target group out-of-the-box." AFAIK subsets of something can be inclusive and exclusive of other stuff, so that first hit on google doesnt help. Also, the same page states lists Skolelinux / Debian under "CDDs released with Etch:" which is wrong. > > And, isnt it possible that this meaning changes over time? > Yes. It is perfectly possible. But this should not happen silently > to avoid confusion. But it did :-) > It makes no sense if people use terms with different > meanings. That's why I talked about "tolerance" to give room for > a change. IMO it makes even less sense to bring this topic up, if someone merely asks how to use simple-cdd here. It's (alsmost) completly pointless IMO. Or at least, it shouldnt be the main part of the answer. > > Also I dont think there is agreement, where a CDD is or should be. > Well, there is a definition. No. There are many definitions. > > Also, I personally see this list as a list for discussions about CDD > > development and about the tools useful for this. And as that I dont > > tolerate discussions about (for example) using simple-cdd to build > > whatever non-CDD someone has in mind, but I think this _exactly_ one of > > the things this list is for. > OK. What would be your conclusion to do? Move on. > > Maybe it would be wise to introduce a new term, for Debian based > > distributions, which are not CDDs according to our definition. That would > > prevent us from using "(official) CDDs" and unoffical ones. So I suggest > > DBD (Debian Based Distributions) for those :-) What do you think? > I think we should find a new name for what is currently called CDD and > it desperately needs the term "internal" in the name. Anything else is > missinterpreted because I learned in the past that people refuse to > read definitions and the term CDD is simply missleading. So you plan to create a new term and new definitions and hope that those will be read? > When I had > my talk about Debian-Science at Chemnitzer LinuxTage two people asked > myself after the talk why I try to build just another Debian derivative. > I've talked about the fact that Debian-Science is internal several times, > I even argued to other people who wanted to know the difference to > other scientific distributions that we have a major advantage: We are > plugged into the huge Debian distribution and thus are on the sholders > of a giant. I tell people that Debian Edu is (or rather: soon will be) Debian. The concept of a distribution within the distribution is not yet widely understood. I believe one way to make it understood better, is to give people the definition in short sentences, instead of pointing to google or cdd-dev. regards, Holger
Attachment:
pgpqOQvp3sCcn.pgp
Description: PGP signature