Re: custom vs. derivative
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I disagree.
... which is perfectly OK - we are in the process of discussion.
These fit your definition then:
* A distribution made from all of main + 1 package from non-free
Sounds reasonable to exclude non-free and specify more detailed what
we want to include.
* A distribution made from all of stable + 1 package from testing
Hmmm, thinking about ist: Why not? I did not had this in mind but
I have no problems with this in case it is tested and just works.
But I have probably not considered all consequences that might occure
out of it.
A "Custom Debian Distribution" is s subpart of the "Debian distribution"
as defined by the Debian project. This means that all parts of it must
be completely contained inside the Debian distribution.
I would like to you to put such things on the Wiki to make it
converge to something useful there. Please work actively with
http://wiki.debian.org/CDDNamingProposals
because I'm afraid that good ideas will be lost in a lengthy
thread on the mailing list.
Even if Debian as a project officially decides to offer the
subdomain edu.debian.org to host what is currently published by
Skolelinux, I would not define that a a CDD.
But on the other hand I could see this as a way for "thingy 2".
Even if passed on to teachers directly on the streets of Oslo (instead
of downloaded from debian.org domains), I would approve it as a CDD if
all of redistributed content is also contained in the Debian
distribution.
Sure. The CD you might pass to teachers contains download_able_
parts from debian.org so I would regard this as "fits the criterion"
I gave (I agree that the wording has to become more clearly).
We might want to look closer at the term "Debian distribution": Is
Lenny a distribution? Is Sarge and Lenny one or two distributions?
They are called releases not distribution. This is just defined
and we do not have to question this (and if you want to then not
here).
This is important for me to clarify, as something mixing stable and
testing stuff is considered CDD development to me, but an official
release of a CDD cannot IMO be based on stuff that is not also
officially released by Debian.
Just read
http://people.debian.org/~tille/cdd/ch-todo.en.html#s-new_ways_of_distribution
This occured out of some discussion at OSWC in Malaga 2004
If someone can find official Debian definition of "Debian distribution"
then that is *much* better than wasting time attempting to define
something that fundamentally is not for us to define :-)
Really good question. As I told you Sarge, Etch and Lenny are
releases, but I also do not know where the term "Debian distribution"
is clearly defined. But this is definitely nothing we should do
on this list but rather at debian-project.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: