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

Re: How much unbranding in Debian templates

On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 10:18:53AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> > (I don't know if this is the right list, but given that unbranding is
> > often done to save l10n work, I'll try here)
> >
> > I am currently updating the new template for dash. It (stripped down)
> > has the following change:
> >
> > -However, since the Debian policy requires
> > +However, since the distribution policy
> Actualy I really don't think that this one is a branding issue, it refers to 
> a specific document not some losely defined distribution policy that would 
> be different for derivative distributions. If a derivative stops complying 
> with that document (thus necitating a change in this string) they'll have 
> bigger issues then patching strings like this.

I think the problem Christian is aware of is the case where a
distribution copies Debian policy, renames and updates it.

But yes, for me "Debian policy" is a specific and well defined
document as well, which a user can be referred to (in contrast to an
abstract "distribution policy".


      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

Reply to: