-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 05:12:29PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: >Hi, > >On Friday 04 April 2008 15:38, Andreas Tille wrote: >> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > i think it's worth making the distinction between: >> > >> > * completely within debian >> > >> > * making progress towards being entirely within debian >> > >> > * little to no intention of being completely within debian >> >> You are right that these are distinctive features of three >> different things. The question is how you would like to measure >> these features. The first one is easy, but the second and third are >> hard to measure. Is it enough if people claim to have this feature? > >The first one is not that easy as well. What does "within Debian" mean? >Stable? Unstable? Volatile? Proposed updates? Are rebuild backports from the >same sources allowed? Or do you need to take the binaries from Debian?
Debian is what Debian defines as Debian. What you can apply the strict logo to. I agree that "within Debian" is vague. But "completely within Debian" is not ambiguous to me. I have no interest in working on the other terms. - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH+8wMn7DbMsAkQLgRAoOBAJ4t6YXBwv6qnxR6E/tqVoc91x0SjACgqM/U AGdL3K5xAz7vCLbvoJlWhFc= =T80e -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
