Re: custom vs. derivative (Re: packages.gz corrupt, missing packages and other issues)
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Holger Levsen wrote:
Well, I hoped for an answer from you, not a pointer to search engines.
I normally regard this as impolite as well, but the answer I intended
to give was actually given in this thread:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-custom/2008/03/msg00038.html
so I'd regarded your question as rhetorical and wanted to explain
that it is not to hard to find. I was not aware that you had doubt
about the page itself.
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.
IMHO a subset always does contain only elements from the main set and no
elements from extern sets. Whe I formerly pointed people to my longish
paper they sometimes did not reached
http://people.debian.org/~tille/cdd/ch-about.en.html#s-CDD
and perhaps I have to give it a better structure.
Also, the same page states lists Skolelinux / Debian under "CDDs released with
Etch:" which is wrong.
OK, so there is room for improvement. I admit that I'm not really a
fan of Wikis because they tend to bit rot at a certain point in time -
well the information was wrong from the beginning, so this is no
argument - but the page needs definitely some work. So why not fixing
it in Extremadura. Seems like a good chance.
Yes. It is perfectly possible. But this should not happen silently
to avoid confusion.
But it did :-)
Don't blame me for this. I take the mailing list as prove that I
always fighted against this.
It's (alsmost) completly pointless IMO. Or at least, it shouldnt be the main
part of the answer.
Ahh, this is right. My sentence that I feel incompetent to answer simple-cdd
was in the end. Sorry.
Well, there is a definition.
No. There are many definitions.
Where are the other competing definitions???
OK. What would be your conclusion to do?
Move on.
Doing what?
So you plan to create a new term and new definitions and hope that those will
be read?
No. I would like to use a term that is clear enough to be understood
correctly without reading any definition. As I told you: I never liked
the name for the beast and others who voted for it either vanished from
this list or didn't joined my attempt to explain (perhaps I'm jost to
stubborn?).
I tell people that Debian Edu is (or rather: soon will be) Debian.
And I'm really thanksful that you are doing so!!!
The concept of a distribution within the distribution is not yet widely
understood.
Unfortunately.
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.
Yes. IMHO, Jonas just found a very good three word "definition" we
could even use as name. And believe me (I do not want to aks you for
browsing the archive because it would be a large waste of time), I was
running several circles in the mailing list and the wiki with several
people but the issue was always blured and never really clarified in
whatever doc we tried to clarify things. (I hope my frustration about
these issues is readable inbetween the lines.)
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: