Hello,
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 05:47:50AM +0000, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Not really as the topic here is saying that /bin/sh should be
> POSIX-compliant, which is a policy we have in Debian (and all CDD, and
> actually all Linux-based distributions).
Then for this case the way "out" would be to simply state that. Since
-However, since the Debian policy requires
+However, since .. is required in (all) Linux distributions
> About the point raised by Helge: I don't really see why "the
> distribution" would be less clear than "Debian".
Because the user does not know where to look. Maybe I'm spoiled from
Science, but I'm used to be able to look things up. And "the
distribution policy" sounds very vague to me (and I understand
distribution here as a means to hand things out (=distribute), so I
don't know if the term is used in its general sense, or in the sense
of a Linux distribution). On the other hand, "Debian policy" is a very
well defined term which users can clearly look up or Google for.
> What matters to users is not that they use Debian, it is using "a"
> free software distribution that fits their needs. Whether this is
> Debian, Debian-Edu, DzongkhaLinux or even Ubuntu doesn't really
> matter. And I think that the word that matters is "policy", not
> "Debian" or "distribution".
But there are also users which do not simply click "ok" or "yes" as
long as it sound somewhat reasonable, but who questions things, poke
around and learn; or who also want to understand more about this "free
software distribution thingy". So it might not matter to them which
one of the distributions listed they use, but they want to be able to
get more information about it. At least these users existed when I
started to get into Linux, I frequently looked things about
(sometimes just for the heck of it), and *I* would feel awkward to ask
somewhere which file this "distribution policy" is. (Btw. "apt-cache
search policy" returns 85 entries on stable).
> Another way would be to completely change such statements by talking
> about "standards", or FHS, or whatever.
This would be fine, as long as some specific statement is made.
> About the concern related to DFSG, I always point people who bring
> that argument that, at least in my interpretation of DFSG, "our users"
> are also the CDD *and* their users, even when these users don't even
> know they are our users.
Ok, but I guess this question is somewhat out of scope, and I rephrase my
rambling to "the user", and even a user of a CDD might wonder which
document is meant and would rather look it up (maybe even it would
still be the DFSG).
Greetings
Helge
--
Dr. Helge Kreutzmann debian@helgefjell.de
Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php
64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred
Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature