Bug#473439: pick consistent terminology for category/component/area

[Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>]

Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 03:37:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
>> > index 24c9072..16919b2 100644
>> > --- a/policy.sgml
>> > +++ b/policy.sgml
>> > @@ -293,7 +293,13 @@
>> >  	<em>free</em> in our sense (see the Debian Free Software
>> >  	Guidelines, below), or may be imported/exported without
>> >  	restrictions. Thus, the archive is split into the distribution
>> > -	areas or categories based on their licenses and other restrictions.
>> > +	areas or components<footnote>
>> > +	  The Debian archive software uses the term "component" internally
>> > +	  and in the Release file format to refer to the division of an
>> > +	  archive.  The Debian Social Contract refers to distribution
>> > +	  areas.  This document uses the same terminology as the Social
>> > +	  Contract.
>> > +	</footnote> based on their licenses and other restrictions.
>
> The SC has this in it:
>   We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive [...]
>   The packages in these areas are [...]
>   packages in these areas [...]
>
> There is no combination with distribution.

True.  I added that because I thought it made the construct clearer, but
perhaps it doesn't.  I suppose we could use archive area instead, which is
closer to the wording of the SC.  Does that sound like a better idea?

Or I could keep distribution area and just change the wording of the
footnote to be more accurate, say:

    The Debian Social Contract refers to areas.

(just removing the "distribution" word there).  I'm happy with either
choice.  I mostly just want to close this old bug.  :)

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>