On Tue, 17 May 2005, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > To clarify: While most other CDD work is best passed on to Debian, the > actual CDD package is not intended for inclusion in the official Debian > archive. > > This is different from the current Skolelinux approach - the packages > base-config-skolelinux, cfengine-skolelinux, locale-config-skolelinux > and webmin-ldap-skolelinux is currently in Debian. > > So I suggest changing the current definition of CDD (as described at > http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?CustomDebian ) from currently reading > "all extras they offer will either become part of Debian, or are > temporary workarounds" to add "except what is relevant to the CDD only > (selection of packages, unique config tweaks, custom logo and so on)".
We should be clear about what this means if this is changed. For what purpose does debian-edu create packages in Debian, and for what purpose are other CDDs wanting to do this? The answer to this question seems to be for the purpose of being able to turn a normal Debian installation *into* a CDD by installing that package. These packages are meta-packages whose installation via traditional package installation means, will install all packages declared as dependencies. Perhaps there are other purposes for having such a package in debian. But if it were simply the conversion of a Debian system into a CDD, how useful or often this sort of CDD vector would actually be employed, but we should be clear here that this is what would be removed in doing this. > An important thing to also include in a policy is also who is ultimately > responsible for each tag. > > I propose each package maintainer to be ultimately responsible for tags > of the package. This makes the most sense to me. If the developer's reference talked about tags, and suggested strongly that they be used (at least until it becomes policy) and there were lintian/linda checks that warn package maintainers that they are missing tags, I think many package maintainers will add these and maintain them. Those that do not can have a bug filed against their package. Users of a package who think that a package should have another tag that it currently does not can file a bug against the package requesting that tag. > For inspiration look at how the package "logcheck" maintains grep > expressions of loglines of daemons for (ultimately) all packages: > Initially expressions are added by the maintainers of logcheck, but a > formal way for each package maintainer to include own expressions is > provided, and as soon as package maintainers starts maintaining their > expressions themselves the corresponding logcheck-maintained expressions > are dropped. In my mind this *is* an inspiring model. It is inspiring because the users of the logcheck package are motivated to file bugs against a package when a log regexp is missing, so the package maintainer gets pushed by the users to maintain these logcheck entries, and the user is pushed by the actual use of the logcheck package. It is a very healthy system, and I agree it should be considered as a model to apply here. > > - Discuss the idea of "Adopting" tags, that is having people who take care > > of > > the correctness of the list of packages associated to a given tag (which > > another point of view compared to checking that all tags associated to a > > package are correct) (Suggested by Erich Schubert) > > I fail to locate it right now, but sounds like the collaborative > proof-reading process of "Den Store Danske Ordliste" (the large danish > wordlist) project may be interesting for this. Do anybody know of > english documentation of that or of similar web-collaborative projects? There is a similar collaborative proof-reading project called the Distributed Proofreading Project (http://www.pgdp.net), which assists Project Gutenberg in proofreading OCR scanned books, so that there can be a reliable electronic copy. They complete approximately 230 books (entire books) a month, 3 to 5 thousand pages a day. Its really a cool project. You are given an image of scanned text, and the OCR's rendition of that page, and you compare, very carefully, the two, and make corrections where necessary, and then submit them. A second-level person (who has done 50 or more first-level projects) then double-checks your work, and then passes it on. Perhaps this is what you are referring to? Micah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
