On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 12:17, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Fabian Fagerholm wrote: > > The term suggests that the distribution is "not-Debian", which is > > unneccessary and confusing. > > As non native speaker and also in general I try to avoid joining stupid > naming discussions. But here is the weak part of the name we have choosen > which has definitely to be clarified in an announcement of those people > who invented the term.
If some of the people who participated in the Debcamp Custom Distribution BOF (see http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-nonprofit/News/2003/20030717) are listening, perhaps you could elaborate? (Cc'ing Mako Hill since he was referenced as one of the driving forces behind the meeting.) It might be hard, impossible and undesirable to reverse the decision to use the term. I think the term can be correctly understood if you present it as I have in some recent postings to this list: Debian is the super-project. XYZ is a Debian subproject that produces a Custom Debian Distribution with the flavors A, B and C. A subproject is easily understood: it's an organisational structure. Basically, it's a group of people working on a subset of Debian. They coordinate via a web site and in some cases have a special mailing list. Some subprojects create Custom Debian Distributions for their particular area of interest. Upon installation of the Custom Debian Distribution, you can select between a number of flavors that set some defaults to suit a particular use. More ideas? Perhaps some of this could be intergrated into the Debian Subproject Howto as soon as some degree of consensus has been reached. (I can't find it right now with people.d.o being inaccessible.) -- Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
