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: