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

Re: Documentation question: components vs. sections

On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 06:12:23PM +0100, Durk Strooisma wrote:
> 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. :-)

Section sounds better to me, too. The most effective approach would be
to submit a patch to the man page, as a wishlist bug on the package.

"The way the Romans made sure their bridges worked is what 
we should do with software engineers. They put the designer 
under the bridge, and then they marched over it." 
-- Lawrence Bernstein, Discover, Feb 2003

Reply to: