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

Re: How much unbranding in Debian templates



Quoting Miguel Figueiredo (elmig@debianpt.org):

> If there's a msg who fits all, great!
> If not, imho, it's a fair work for whoever wishes to adapt the software.
> 
> Regarding on that particular message, is it possible something like:
> 
> "However, since the upstream policy..." ?


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).

About the point raised by Helge: I don't really see why "the
distribution" would be less clear than "Debian".

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".

Another way would be to completely change such statements by talking
about "standards", or FHS, or whatever.

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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: