[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: confusion about non-free (Re: Bits from the Debian Eee PC team, summer 2008)

Russ Allbery wrote:
> Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> writes:
>> Therefore Lenny is not Debian, but a superset of it?
>> This is troubling.  Do you have any suggestions on how to address this?
> I recommend not attributing such judgements to the configuration files of
> software packages.


It is more that a configuration file, and BTW the same notation it is
also used by apt. Archive and its format are an area of ftp-master.

And BTW the terminology was not important, and debian policy should
agree with the same reasoning:
Debian distribution is main (explicit written in policy, chapter 2).

"stable" has something called "main", "contrib" and "non-free"
(terminology changes, but not important in this case).
So "stable" is a super set of Debian distribution (aka "main").
"Judgement" was on such reasoning, not on the dak terminology.

"Debian distribution" is also used with other meanings,
but not relevant to the initial question.

I used "Release" file, because in 6 lines, DDs see the problem of
terminology of different "divisions" in Debian, and because it
is one of the few places where we find the name "lenny", which
was the initial problem.

> I'm looking for review of http://bugs.debian.org/473439, which tries to
> help clarify terminology in this area.  If you have a chance and care,
> please review that bug and second or discuss the proposed change in that
> bug.

The bug is only relevant to policy, but as stated by policy team,
debian/copyright, interpretation of DFSG, archive sections ("devel",
"libs", "mail"), etc. are areas outside policy, but they are in
ftp-master hands.
So IMHO what "Debian" means (linked to DFSG) and what Lenny means
(archive) is outside debian-policy (and outside of the cited bug).

This is unfortunate.

The terminology and the area of competences should be cleared defined
by debian project, and probably result to a common document
(with addition to all bureaucratic things, no to pass on other foot).

IMHO the Debian project should give developers (and users) more
importance, i.e. we need a single and consistent document.
Only internally Debian should defines the edit right of different
team (and in which area).

Unfortunately now it is done in the other direction:
actually the priority is on relevant teams and not to developers,
so DDs should check is few places new rules.
But this means also that teams doesn't coordinate and we have
different and confusing terminologies.


Reply to: