Bug#473439: pick consistent terminology for category/component/area
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 10:23:38AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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. :)
I'd say:
The Debian Social Contract simply refers to "areas".
... to emphasise the fact (as it seems to me) that the SC is
non-specific.
I don't think we should feel tied to the SC's vague choice of words. I
strongly suspect that (a) the authors were more interested in getting
across the principle than in clear nomenclature, and (b) the specific
term "components" in our archive maintenance software postdates the SC.
Since this is technical policy, it seems reasonable to me that we would
generally prefer more specific terms.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: