Hi, On Friday 04 April 2008 01:58, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > ...which is exactly why I favor the term "pure blend" as a new name for > what is currently defined as CDD: you can "blend" (as in stir, shake, > sort) the priority of packages to favor postfix over Exim or XFCE over > Gnome, but pure can only mean 100% Debian. Hm. That would be nice indeed, to have "blend" and "pure blend". I'm not sure if the name is so good (many people hate cigarettes and the names remind of those).. To throw in another thought I had last night, after our discussion: Debian Edu is not 99,867% Debian as I wrote yesterday, but 100%. It's an official Debian subproject, so it is Debian. It only takes 99,867% from stable and stable-updates, and the rest is from our archive, which is an official archive of an official Debian subproject. There are other official archives too: volatile comes to mind, and hopefully backports will soon be official too. Also there is the issue that Debian Edu might release within Lenny, but then produce independent pointreleases of it afterwards. (Then we will again have less than 100% of our packages from main, security updatdes and volatile.) And then we might also use packages during development, which are not yet in Debian (cause they are stuck in NEW in Debian or whatever.) And there might be nonfree blends. Or not. Just throwing in thoughts atm :) regards, Holger
Attachment:
pgp3wOKCf7qtk.pgp
Description: PGP signature