Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wasn't attempting to imply you were wrong, just pointing out the > need for consistency.
I agree. I need to be consistent with whatever is in Policy; that's the bible. I think I've proven my point that the devel-ref is consistent with Policy. I've stopped CC'ing the bug against developers-reference. If we want to change it, we need to change it in Policy, and hence, open a new bug against Policy. So it's not a developers-reference issue at all. I personnally won't be initiating this effort because I think that while the current terminology is maybe a little suboptimal, I haven't seen anything that was better enough to bother...! Some comments on the various terms... <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (James A. Treacy) writes: > aph wrote: >> distribution: >> >> A set of packages which make up a general release of Debian. This >> set may either represent an actual released version of Debian, a >> proposed set of packages, or a "vestigal" distribution such as >> "experimental". >> >> examples: stable, unstable, slink, hamm, bo > 'release' seems to be the common term for this. You even use it in > the definition. Distribution is usually used when referring to what > you call a section below. I like "release" --- I suppose 2.0 is a release, but 2.0r3 is just revision 3 of release 2.0? The issue is, do we speak of "the unstable distribution", or, "the unstable release". To my ear, "unstable release" is wrong. >> section: >> >> A "sub-distribution" which defines a set of packages based on their >> compliance with the DFSG or other factors. "Official" Debian is >> always only the "main" section of a distribution. >> >> examples: main, contrib, non-free /usr/doc/apt/guide.sgml term: >> component policy citation: Thus, the archive is split into the >> sections *main*, *non-us*, *non-free*, and *contrib*. >> > As mentioned above, this is usually called a distribution. Once > again, you used the preferred term in the definition. Distribution appeals to me from a logical standpoint. However, I think it is confusing. When *most* users think distribution, they'll think "Debian is a distribution", not Slink/main is a distribution. I.e., "The RedHat distribution". Calling this a "component", as apt documentation does, is just ugly sounding. I don't like saying, "it's in the main component". Nor do I like, "it's in the main distribution" (which would seem very confusing for anyone not familiar with our rather esoteric use of the term). Start to string them together: "it's in the main distribution of the 2.0 release". Hmm, that's ok; not great, but ok. As for subsection, yes, I do think the right thing, if we bothered to rename it, would be to rename it "section". The sub is evil. Who says, "it's in the admin subsection"; "it's in the admin section" is much better. .....A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
