Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <ti...@debian.org> writes: ... > I'm wondering how the d-i team feels about that (having the image with > non-free > bits called unofficial). Or whether it makes any sense at all, say, having > such > an essential component developed by fellow Debian members, using official > Debian resources, and still being named 'unofficial', just for our > convenience (?)
IIRC the "official" thing came in because someone produced a CD for a
magazine cover for some early release (1.2 maybe?) that was actually
slightly pre-release, because their publication date was set to coincide
with the actual release, but there was a significant bug with that CD
image, so we were forced to call the actual release CDs 1.2.1 (or
whatever) in order to distinguish between the other (widely distributed,
buggy) version and the actual release.
I seem to remember that is was quite annoying at the time.
Calling certain images "official" was an attempt to stop that sort of
thing happening again.
Does anyone still mass-produce CDs?
I think we could simply forget about the term "official" now, and just
let people download whatever's current, in whichever variant suits their
purpose best ("free" vs. "free+firmware").
Cheers, Phil.
--
|)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
