Documentation question: components vs. sections
Hi all,
First I'm not really sure this is the right place to ask this question, but
it's a question related to documentation conventions concerning Debian.
To get an answer to question, I tried the IRC channel #debian
(freenode.net). The following is the discussion which happened there (I'm
Durk):
<Durk> Hi people, I'm getting a bit confused by the naming of things in the
Debian archive structure. I'm wondering if there is a official name for
"main", "contrib", "non-free". The Debian Policy Manual calls these things
"sections", but the man page of "sources.list" calls them components. Not to
mention the different speak of people. Or.. isn't there just a official name?
<jm_> durnew -- they have been called section since I can remember
<Durk> jm_: how much official is it? Isn't there a naming convention?
<cafuego> Durk: We pretty much all bide by whatever jm_ decides.
<jm_> Durk -- well I'm just a long term Debian user, it has always been
called section in my book
<Durk> jm_: then it's pretty strange people call it component in man pages..
But I should call it "section" to avoid misunderstanding?
<jm_> Durk -- well I think more people will know what a section is as
opposed to a component
<Durk> jm_: yeah, of course, by the meaning of the word...
<Durk> jm_: okay, so I may conclude that there is no officiallity in naming
of the objects "main", "contrib", etc.
<jm_> Durk -- ask on the mailing list to be sure ;)
<Durk> jm_: okay I will. Thanks sofar :-)
Additional, it seems that the word "component" is also used in the Release
files which remain in the Debian archives.
Hope you can help. :-)
Durk
Reply to: