Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 03:37:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
>> > index 24c9072..16919b2 100644
>> > --- a/policy.sgml
>> > +++ b/policy.sgml
>> > @@ -293,7 +293,13 @@
>> > <em>free</em> in our sense (see the Debian Free Software
>> > Guidelines, below), or may be imported/exported without
>> > restrictions. Thus, the archive is split into the distribution
>> > - areas or categories based on their licenses and other restrictions.
>> > + areas or components<footnote>
>> > + The Debian archive software uses the term "component" internally
>> > + and in the Release file format to refer to the division of an
>> > + archive. The Debian Social Contract refers to distribution
>> > + areas. This document uses the same terminology as the Social
>> > + Contract.
>> > + </footnote> based on their licenses and other restrictions.
>
> The SC has this in it:
> We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive [...]
> The packages in these areas are [...]
> packages in these areas [...]
>
> There is no combination with distribution.
True. I added that because I thought it made the construct clearer, but
perhaps it doesn't. I suppose we could use archive area instead, which is
closer to the wording of the SC. Does that sound like a better idea?
Or I could keep distribution area and just change the wording of the
footnote to be more accurate, say:
The Debian Social Contract refers to areas.
(just removing the "distribution" word there). I'm happy with either
choice. I mostly just want to close this old bug. :)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
