Re: CrunchBang
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 06:36:46PM +0530, Anil Gulecha wrote:
>> > Hmm, I'm not too sure - the page stars of with "CrunchBang Linux is an
>> > Ubuntu based distribution". From my understanding the list is meant to
>> > contain directly Debian-based distributions and not ones that are based
>> > on something based on Debian. The difference would increase and get more
>> > and more diverse.
>> >
>> > Of course I don't say that I have the only saying on the thing, but I'm
>> > not yet convinced enough that we really should list derivatives of
>> > derivatives of derivatives.
>>
>> I would argue this point the other way. Ex: the Nexenta distribution
>> is based on Ubuntu LTS, but definitely considers Debian as upstream
>> (It's even mentioned on the initial Grub screen).
>
> So, I think the difference is exactly in that. I've no problem with
> grandchildren distros, but I believe they should advertise or at least
> acknowledge that they are (indirectly) Debian based.
>
> In the case of CrunchBang, I believe that a random viewer of the
> children-distro page might remain a bit puzzled of reading first (on our
> page) that CrunchBang is Debian-based and of reading later on (on the
> CrunchBang page) that they are Ubuntu-based. If such a user is not
> familiar with the Debian-Ubuntu relationship, they might believe there's
> an error somewhere.
>
> Practical proposal: ask (whoever is interested in having the distro
> listed there :-)) the CrunchBang folks to advertise that they are
> Debian-based "and in particular Ubuntu-based", and then add them to the
> children-distro page.
>
> How does the above sound as compromise solution?
I think this is an agreeable solution.
~Anil
Reply to: