Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> writes: > One detail: That new page describes metapackage as a minimum requirement > for a blend - I disagree that to be a requirement¹, so am curious where > that came from.
In my reading this page does not describe a requirement, but a status. And currently every released Pure Blend *has* metapackages, right? Maybe, this paragraph could be rephrased as "The released Pure Blends have metapackages in the <a href="https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/>stable</a> release of Debian. Some Pure Blends also provide installation media or form the basis of a derivative distribution. See the individual Blends pages for more information." A naming question: are there any "non-pure" blends yet? I feel the current convention a bit confusing: The Terminology in the Wiki means: | "Blend" is a Debian-based distribution that is, or wants to become, a | Pure Blend ... (not mentioning another meaning) The new web pages has: | Debian Pure Blends are also just called Blends when used clearly in | the Debian internal context which makes "Pure" and "Debian" obvious, | like on this page. This is IMO hard to understand: how can I see what is a "Debian internal context"? Is the Debian Wiki one? Or the Debian [Pure] Blends Pages? At least, I was confused about that when I started to get interested in [Debian] [Pure] Blends. I would propose to either consequently stick to "[Debian] Pure Blends", or to remove the non-pure definition from the Wiki and just to make the first paragraph of www.d.o/blends as "Debian Pure Blends (or Blends, for short) are a solution for special groups ...". Best regards Ole
