Bug#473439: pick consistent terminology for category/component/area

Colin Watson writes: > I think this is fine except that you missed a couple of bits: Thanks! I'm going ahead and merging this, with those fixes, for the next Policy release. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-p

Bug#473439: pick consistent terminology for category/component/area

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 07:41:40PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Colin Watson writes: > > I'd say: > > > > The Debian Social Contract simply refers to "areas". > > > > ... to emphasise the fact (as it seems to me) that the SC is > > non-specific. > > > > I don't think we should feel tied to the S

Bug#473439: pick consistent terminology for category/component/area

Colin Watson writes: > I'd say: > > The Debian Social Contract simply refers to "areas". > > ... to emphasise the fact (as it seems to me) that the SC is > non-specific. > > I don't think we should feel tied to the SC's vague choice of words. I > strongly suspect that (a) the authors were more

Bug#473439: pick consistent terminology for category/component/area

On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 10:23:38AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Kurt Roeckx 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,

Bug#473439: pick consistent terminology for category/component/area

Russ Allbery wrote: Russ Allbery writes: I did a bit more research based on Osamu Aoki's excellent work. Currently, these things are referred to using three different terms: * dak calls them components. * The current Debian Policy document calls them categories. * The Social Contract calls th

Bug#473439: pick consistent terminology for category/component/area

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009, Russ Allbery wrote: > 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? To me it sounds better but maybe

Bug#473439: pick consistent terminology for category/component/area

Kurt Roeckx 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 @@ >> >free in our sense (see the Debian Free Software >> >

Bug#473439: pick consistent terminology for category/component/area

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 @@ > > free in our sense (see the Debian Free Software > > Guidelines, below), or may

Bug#473439: pick consistent terminology for category/component/area

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 03:37:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Russ Allbery writes: > > > I did a bit more research based on Osamu Aoki's excellent work. > > Currently, these things are referred to using three different terms: [...] > As mentioned, I'm not sure we need to match the terminology i

Bug#473439: pick consistent terminology for category/component/area

* Russ Allbery [Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:37:37 -0800]: > > I think Policy should not attempt to make up its own terminology here, > > so I'd like to change it to match either dak or the Social Contract. > > After thinking about it for a bit, I favor going to the terminology of > > the Social Contract w

Bug#473439: pick consistent terminology for category/component/area

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Russ Allbery wrote: > However, there doesn't appear to be any consensus on this right now. So > this is a ping to see if we do have consensus and people just haven't > said, or if we don't. If we don't have consensus, my inclination is to > close this bug and continue using c

Bug#473439: pick consistent terminology for category/component/area

Russ Allbery writes: > I did a bit more research based on Osamu Aoki's excellent work. > Currently, these things are referred to using three different terms: > > * dak calls them components. > * The current Debian Policy document calls them categories. > * The Social Contract calls them areas: >

Bug#473439: pick consistent terminology for category/component/area

Note that things get a bit more complex if you consider debian-installer. The control file for D-I packages has "Section: debian-installer" (or {contrib,non-free}/debian-installer). In the archive this translates to: dists//{main,contrib,non-free}/debian-installer/binary- So in this special cas