On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 02:46, Anthony Towns wrote: > So, using my definitions, the following conclusions are (IMO) true: > > * all flavours are policy compliant > > * some derived distros might be policy compliant
Do you mean to include, eg. derived distros including non-free software here, or should we have a separate term for this? > * you can't always create a flavour to do what you want > > * you can always create a derived distro to do what you want > > * improving our mechanisms for supporting "flavours" helps derived > distros and their users > > * we can improve our support for "flavours" by co-opting many of the > techniques pioneered by derived distros > > * a derived distro can be an internal Debian project, but won't ever > be /as/ internal as a flavour > > * distributing customised Debian distros is not only the way of the > future, it's the way of the present! Awesome summary. That's great - it covers all bases, and it makes sense to me (as someone who hasn't used the other terms (internal proj, subproj, metadistro, etc) in the past. I think it would be useful for this to be added to the Custom Debian Distro wiki (here I think: http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?CustomDebian). Thanks heaps Zen -- Debian Enterprise: A Custom Debian Distribution: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
