-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-05-2005 01:19, Micah Anderson wrote: > 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.
Bingo! Last weekend in GÃtersloh I raised the point of "don't consider yourself the end of the road, but part of the process". It was aimed at Skolelinux, but fits well into this general discussion of CDDs as well: The term CDD is used for the idea of metapackages taken to the extremes of being able to generate a complete (live bootable?) official sub-distribution. The term CDD is also used for another idea of using Debian as the core for more extreme goals not possible within Debian (Gibraltar and others) - - like adding software conflicting with DFSG or smoothing the overall system - either by hacking around in package configuration routines (Skolelinux) or more drastically by rebuilding packages (Ubuntu). Both uses of CDD thinks in "giving back to Debian", but only the first makes sense to aim at "putting itself within Debian". So I propose not changing the definition, but instead naming these different goals of CDDs: CiDD: Custom (inside) Debian Distribution CoDD: Custom (outside) Debian Distribution Why those names? Because the first is seen as family, a child, a kid (CiDD), from Debians point of view - while the second is seen as having cut (CoDD) itself off of the Debian family. :-) >>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. In reality the logcheck developers are maintaining most regex'es themselves - only package maintainers actively adopting regex'es for their own packages lower their central maintainance burden. Still I find the approach seems sane to me. >>>- 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? I was not referring to something specific, just expected something non-danish to exist as well :-) The danish dictionary proof-reading system may actually be closer to what we want, as it seems simpler - like "voting for words": Register with the system, and you get a small chink of random words. For each word you mark if it is a proper danish word. The current danish dictionary consists of all words "voted" as proper danish by at least two persons. Parallel to the "stable" releases you can choose to instead use "unstable" releases consisting of fewer words but "elected" by more people. Replace "words" in the above with "tags" and you have a proof-reading system for tagging of packages. - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nÃr: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCjgLin7DbMsAkQLgRApI3AJ9ZEBcWzI3+DLcjmrx3M6TMEONjYQCfQdvf 0Zs3VzDXDB/vZrnqRAMG1is= =m296 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
