Russ Allbery wrote:
> Giacomo Catenazzi
debian.org> writes:>> Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> I recommend not attributing such judgements to the configuration files
>>> of software packages.
>
>> Sorry???
>
>> It is more that a configuration file, and BTW the same notation it is
>> also used by apt. Archive and its format are an area of ftp-master.
>
> I disagree. The Release file in the archive is a configuration file that
> is part of the software interface to the archive. The terminology that it
> uses refers to capabilities within the archive maintenance software and
> within the software that downloads files from a Debian archive. It does
> not have anything to do with legal, administrative, or focus decisions
> taken by the Debian project.
>
> Mixing the terminology used for a software package with the terminology
> used for the founding organizational documents of the project is a
> mistake, in my opinion. The Debian archive software is general software
> that could be used for any project, even with an entirely different use of
> the component feature that has nothing to do with licensing. We happen to
> use it for licensing and to separate things that are part of the
> distribution from things that are not, but this is not in any way inherent
> to the component concept within the archive software.
ok, you are right, and BTW the Release file of Ubuntu seems
to interpret the parts in a different manner.
OTOH:
- people tend to use more the dak terminology (also because it
is exported on apt pinning)
To be correct, it should also be noted that some terms are
not 1 to 1 with policy: i.e. dak uses "updates/main" (i.e.
in security archive) as "component". Policy "area" has
only the "main" part (which is called "segment" when used
with "segment/section").
- policy is also not consistent on terminology (but finally
it was noticed and you corrected: thanks Russ!)
- using two notations, for two different field, is confusing
So I think we should setup a BOFH in DebConf,
with policy, dak, ftp-masters, apt, etc. people,
to check the terminology (and identify the
subtle differences, e.g. component vs. area),
and to write a Debian glossary, which possibly
reduce confusion (which started this thread).
There are interested people for such BOFH?
>
>> The bug is only relevant to policy, but as stated by policy team,
>> debian/copyright, interpretation of DFSG, archive sections ("devel",
>> "libs", "mail"), etc. are areas outside policy, but they are in
>> ftp-master hands. So IMHO what "Debian" means (linked to DFSG) and what
>> Lenny means (archive) is outside debian-policy (and outside of the cited
>> bug).
>
>> This is unfortunate.
>
> I don't agree that this is the case to the extent that you describe, or
> that it follows from that bug or from other Policy discussions, although I
> agree that thet Constitution and Social Contract have more to say about
> this than Policy does.
I was proposing an explanation of the origin of confusing and
inconsistent terms. Probably there are better explaination.
[but if I don't write a plausible, probably wrong, explanation,
nobody will write the right explanation ;-) ]
ciao
cate
