Re: The term "Custom Debian Distribution" (Was Re: [custom] The term "flavor" and encouraging work on Debian)
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:23:52AM -0600, cobaco <cobaco@linux.be> wrote:
> On 2003-12-05 11:06, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > Well, at least for my understanding SkoleLinux is not a "Custom Debian
> > Distribution" exactly because they have packages which are not integrated
> > in Debian. This is no problem at all, but exactly here is the cruxial
> > point of our definition. In my talk about CDD in Oslo I suggested the
> > SkoleLinux people to take over the Debian-Edu ball because Raphael Herzog
> > announced that he was running out of time.
>
> in the process of happening actually
A move that I'm happy to see is happening.
> >Debian-Edu *is* a CDD because
> > it is completely inside Debian and
>
> hm, as far as I know Debian-edu is nothing more then a couple of
> task-packages at this point (and some education packages that got added to
> the archive)
Which doesn't change Andreas' point. It may be a lame CDD, but it is still
a CDD. :)
> > the suggestion is that SkoleLinux
> > people patch the packages according to their needs.
>
> being done for Skolelinux, so basically you're saying that Skolelinux (or any
> other project aiming to be a CDD) is not a CDD untill they get everything
> they need back into Debian proper (which can take quite a while), even when
> we're trying to do so (and always have)?
Again we trip across the distinction between organizational and technical
terms. Skolelinux has not yet produced a CDD release (the technical term),
but it is a work-in-progress. Organizationally, Skolelinux is a subproject
that is working to produce a CDD because that is its stated goal.
> >The *product* (one
> > bootable CD) which contains Debian-Edu plus some extra packages which are
> > necessary for whatever reason might be called SkoleLinux but this is not a
> > CDD per the definition I was using in my talk in Oslo. There was nobody
> > who disagreed ...
>
> hm, the definition I was using for a CDD would include Skolelinux because
> while not everything we do is in Debian _yet_we are trying to get everything
> included into Debian.
Sure, the work-in-progress is a CDD. Existing releases, however, are not.
> the responses to my earlier messages
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200312/msg00457.html
> and
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200312/msg00403.html
> would seem to indicate (at least to me) that this view was shared
I still have a problem with "whenever possible". You seem to be reserving
the right to always include some material in releases of the CDD that is
outside of Debian. You cannot call any release of Debian including material
outside of Debian main "Official Debian". That isn't just splitting hairs.
That's how it is described here:
http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/
Depending on whether you are talking about a CD of Skolelinux as a stable or
developer's release, it is either a "Vendor Release" or "Development
Snapshot" according to the descriptions on this page.
> The important point here is, IMHO, that
> there is effort to get the missing pieces into Debian. Wether all pieces are
> already in Debian at a given point in time is I think unimportant (for
> defining a CDD anyways).
For defining a subproject working on a CDD, no. But intent doesn't make any
difference to the end-user if release time rolls around and stuff outside of
Debian is still being included. At this point, what the users have in their
hands is a distribution derived from Debian. For example, if they find bugs
in any of the material outside of Debian, it must be dealt with outside of
the usual Debian structures (i.e. bts makes no provision for filing bugs
against packages that aren't actually in Debian).
Regards,
Ben
--
,-. nSLUG http://www.nslug.ns.ca synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca
\`' Debian http://www.debian.org synrg@debian.org
` [ gpg 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ]
[ pgp 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ]
Reply to: