Bug#473439: debian-policy: Debian Policy inconsistent with Developer's Reference
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org> writes:
> OTOH, the 'Release' file uses the dak terminology, and the name is
> encoded on some tools. The most visible is apt: apt_preferences(5) for
> pining use the term "Component".
>
> Because is not a urgent topic, and (IMO) there are some other
> terminology problems about archive terminology, I thinks we should wait
> and find a good terminology for all terms, and having some agreement on
> transition plan (dak, apt, debian reference,....)
>
> BTW, I think a good starting point is to "standardize" the terms
> in the Release file, after this, the solution of term problem
> should be trivial.
I tried to cover this in my initial message, but I think it's reasonable
for us to use different terminology than dak uses. dak is talking about a
capability of the archive software, whereas we're talking about a split of
the archive that has more project significance (such as for licensing).
If it helps, I think of it this way: distribution areas are a Debian
Policy requirement, which are implemented using dak's component
capability.
Component doesn't really feel like the right term in Policy given that we
use a different term in the Social Contract.
But it's possible that I'm being too picky. I'm not sure.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: