Re: terminology issues: distributions, sections, subsections
Branden Robinson <branden@purdue.edu> writes:
> I wasn't attempting to imply you were wrong, just pointing out the
> need for consistency.
I agree. I need to be consistent with whatever is in Policy; that's
the bible. I think I've proven my point that the devel-ref is
consistent with Policy.
I've stopped CC'ing the bug against developers-reference. If we want
to change it, we need to change it in Policy, and hence, open a new
bug against Policy. So it's not a developers-reference issue at all.
I personnally won't be initiating this effort because I think that
while the current terminology is maybe a little suboptimal, I haven't
seen anything that was better enough to bother...!
Some comments on the various terms...
<treacy@debian.org> (James A. Treacy) writes:
> aph wrote:
>> distribution:
>>
>> A set of packages which make up a general release of Debian. This
>> set may either represent an actual released version of Debian, a
>> proposed set of packages, or a "vestigal" distribution such as
>> "experimental".
>>
>> examples: stable, unstable, slink, hamm, bo
> 'release' seems to be the common term for this. You even use it in
> the definition. Distribution is usually used when referring to what
> you call a section below.
I like "release" --- I suppose 2.0 is a release, but 2.0r3 is just
revision 3 of release 2.0?
The issue is, do we speak of "the unstable distribution", or, "the
unstable release". To my ear, "unstable release" is wrong.
>> section:
>>
>> A "sub-distribution" which defines a set of packages based on their
>> compliance with the DFSG or other factors. "Official" Debian is
>> always only the "main" section of a distribution.
>>
>> examples: main, contrib, non-free /usr/doc/apt/guide.sgml term:
>> component policy citation: Thus, the archive is split into the
>> sections *main*, *non-us*, *non-free*, and *contrib*.
>>
> As mentioned above, this is usually called a distribution. Once
> again, you used the preferred term in the definition.
Distribution appeals to me from a logical standpoint. However, I think
it is confusing. When *most* users think distribution, they'll think
"Debian is a distribution", not Slink/main is a distribution. I.e.,
"The RedHat distribution".
Calling this a "component", as apt documentation does, is just ugly
sounding. I don't like saying, "it's in the main component". Nor do
I like, "it's in the main distribution" (which would seem very
confusing for anyone not familiar with our rather esoteric use of the
term). Start to string them together: "it's in the main distribution
of the 2.0 release". Hmm, that's ok; not great, but ok.
As for subsection, yes, I do think the right thing, if we bothered to
rename it, would be to rename it "section". The sub is evil. Who
says, "it's in the admin subsection"; "it's in the admin section" is
much better.
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: