On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Since I evidently didn't, I'm going to spell things out in as much
> boring detail as I can. If I don't end up insulting your intelligence,
> my apologies. :)
You have clarified the situation nicely.
>
> So, using my definitions, the following conclusions are (IMO) true:
>
> * all flavours are policy compliant
Basically sorting the stable archive and modifying the the current
installation scheme to suit. Technically easy. The task and exclude
lists in debian-cd and a few meta packages, or modify the override-*-extra
files. Been there, done that.
> * some derived distros might be policy compliant
The final test being that the installation is completely apt compatable
with a Debian mirror?
> * you can't always create a flavour to do what you want
Yes
> * you can always create a derived distro to do what you want
Yes
> * improving our mechanisms for supporting "flavours" helps derived
> distros and their users
And makes Debian more diverse and so more universal.
> * we can improve our support for "flavours" by co-opting many of the
> techniques pioneered by derived distros
People who produce derived distros tend to think "outside the square" and
so can add a new dimention to Debian.
> * a derived distro can be an internal Debian project, but won't ever
> be /as/ internal as a flavour
But always remain on friendly terms with those working outside Debian.
> * distributing customised Debian distros is not only the way of the
> future, it's the way of the present!
Sure is, and Debian is by far the best distro for this purpose.
Phil.
--
Philip Charles; 39a Paterson Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin, New Zealand
+64 3 488 2818 Fax +64 3 488 2875 Mobile 025 267 9420
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - preferred. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I sell GNU/Linux & GNU/Hurd CDs. See http://www.copyleft.co.nz
