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

Re: "official" image terminology Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Hey Ross!

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:04:24AM -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:38:09AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I don't think the word "official" is defined or used in any foundational
>> document, nor that its meaning is well agreed on or actually helps the
>> discussion.
>I had assumed "official" was in more common usage.  It seems like that's
>false.  Since the cloud team uses that term, here's a bit of detail I
>can offer.
>The best doc that I know of is here:
>  https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/OfficialImages
>This tracks Steve's usage from earlier in the thread.  The cloud team
>uses it like this too --- we probably got it from him, back when he was
>on the team.  We also used to have DSA members on the team who seemed
>keen on the term.
>So while it doesn't appear in any foundational document, it does have
>traction amongst folks that are affected by these issues.  

Nod. It's been in common use amongst a number of teams over the
years. It's been useful particularly when denoting stuff that is *not*
official but still distributed by various Debian teams - e.g. test
builds or builds including non-free bits. It's been a subject of
discussion with the trademark team in the past, too.

Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
“Changing random stuff until your program works is bad coding
 practice, but if you do it fast enough it’s Machine Learning.”
   -- https://twitter.com/manisha72617183

Reply to: