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

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



On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 07:41:40PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> writes:
> > 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.
> 
> Here's an updated patch that includes this change and some other
> rewordings and which changes "distribution area" to "archive area," which
> I think is more accurate and less ambiguous (no confusion with the "Debian
> GNU/Linux distribution," for example).  How does this look?

I think this is fine except that you missed a couple of bits:

>  	  <list compact="compact">
>  	    <item>
>  		  <em>section</em> if the package is in the
> -		  <em>main</em> category,
> +		  <em>main</em> distribution area,

-		  <em>main</em> category,
+		  <em>main</em> archive area,

>  	    </item>
>  	    <item>
> -		  <em>segment/section</em> if the package is in
> +		  <em>area/section</em> if the package is in
>  		  the <em>contrib</em> or <em>non-free</em>
>  		  distribution areas.

- 		  distribution areas.
+ 		  archive areas.

Seconded with those modifications.

-- 
Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@debian.org]

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: