Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

2008/11/10 Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de>:
[color=blue]
> We realised that the old name Custom Debian Distributions just sended
> the wrong message to outsiders: The conclusion that CDDs are something
> else than Debian was to "obvious" if people did not read the relevant
> documentation. So we finally found a raw consensus for a new name:
>
> Debian Pure Blends[/color]

I'm not exactly sure that I like the new name, to be honest.

Greetings,
Miry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 11:53 +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:[color=blue]
> 2008/11/10 Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de>:
> [color=green]
> > We realised that the old name Custom Debian Distributions just sended
> > the wrong message to outsiders: The conclusion that CDDs are something
> > else than Debian was to "obvious" if people did not read the relevant
> > documentation. So we finally found a raw consensus for a new name:
> >
> > Debian Pure Blends[/color]
>
> I'm not exactly sure that I like the new name, to be honest.[/color]

I'm confused by the new name - what are we blending and why confuse
"Pure" and "Blend" in the same name?

Emdebian is a customised Debian too - we will have two flavours soon, a
functionally-identical but smaller Debian based on Squeeze (Emdebian
Grip) and a maximally reduced flavour with functional changes called
Emdebian Crush.

[url]http://www.emdebian.org/emdebian/flavours.html[/url]

I was never particularly clear on why "Custom" was a bad name to use.
There is Debian and there are variations of Debian that are customised
for particular roles. Within those variations, flavours and sub-projects
also exist.

I can't see the reasoning for "Pure" "Blends" - doesn't make any sense
to me.

--


Neil Williams
=============
[url]http://www.data-freedom.org/[/url]
[url]http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/[/url]
[url]http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/[/url]



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkkYFd8ACgkQiAEJSii8s+OK4ACeK/BDGyCDsTdL6rPmU0Z+4NEs
BEkAnjUqTOsBxuR1MDhfOHWmBI3CkCJU
=qq5W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> We realised that the old name Custom Debian Distributions just sended
>> the wrong message to outsiders: The conclusion that CDDs are something
>> else than Debian was to "obvious" if people did not read the relevant
>> documentation. So we finally found a raw consensus for a new name:
>>
>> Debian Pure Blends[/color]
>
> I'm not exactly sure that I like the new name, to be honest.[/color]

Well, the renaming was announced on debian-custom list and all lists
of existing CDDs (also for instance on Debian Junior list[1]). And,
yes, you are not the only one who is not really happy, but this name
has won the poll and I also asked[2] whether "people insist on a
condorset voting". So there was a chance to take some influence for
people who are involved.

Kind regards

Andreas.


[1] [url]http://lists.debian.org/debian-jr/2008/09/msg00003.html[/url]
[2] [url]http://lists.debian.org/debian-custom/2008/10/msg00002.html[/url]

--
[url]http://fam-tille.de[/url]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'm confused by the new name - what are we blending and why confuse
> "Pure" and "Blend" in the same name?
>
> Emdebian is a customised Debian too - we will have two flavours soon, a
> functionally-identical but smaller Debian based on Squeeze (Emdebian
> Grip) and a maximally reduced flavour with functional changes called
> Emdebian Crush.[/color]

Emdebian is a more of a Debian-derived distribution (like
Ubuntu/Debian-Edu), Debian Pure Blends (and the old CDDs) are simply a
group of people working within Debian to make Debian itself suitable
for a specific audience.

I do think the new name is much better than the old one, but I agree
that it still isn't perfect.

I think "raw consensus" is roughly equal to "rough consensus".

--
bye,
pabs

[url]http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise[/url]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
[color=blue]
> I was never particularly clear on why "Custom" was a bad name to use.[/color]

Actually "distribution" was the worst part of the old name.

Before we have another round of discussing names: Could everybody
who is really interested in the projects please have a look into
the paper[1] and see if they identify with the things described there.

IMHO Emdebian does not really fit into this. To be a Debian Pure Blend
everything has to be inside (pure) Debian. We just try to make sure
that people understand this fact. If you would like to call Emdebian
a "Custom Debian Distribution" this is perfectly fine now because this
term is now not covered any more by a concept we are using which Emdebian
does not really fit into.

Kind regards

Andreas.

[1] [url]http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/blends/[/url]

--
[url]http://fam-tille.de[/url]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 12:32 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
> [color=green]
> > I was never particularly clear on why "Custom" was a bad name to use.[/color]
>
> Actually "distribution" was the worst part of the old name.[/color]

ok
[color=blue]
> Before we have another round of discussing names: Could everybody
> who is really interested in the projects please have a look into
> the paper[1] and see if they identify with the things described there.[/color]

ack
[color=blue]
> IMHO Emdebian does not really fit into this. [/color]

That's why I mentioned the flavours - traditional Emdebian is different,
but that is what will be the Crush flavour. Grip will be straight
Debian, just with smaller packages.
[color=blue]
> To be a Debian Pure Blend
> everything has to be inside (pure) Debian. [/color]

For Emdebian Grip, this does apply (albeit that the scripts themselves
are in development and waiting for the Lenny release before being
uploaded).
[color=blue]
> We just try to make sure
> that people understand this fact. If you would like to call Emdebian
> a "Custom Debian Distribution" this is perfectly fine now because this
> term is now not covered any more by a concept we are using which Emdebian
> does not really fit into.[/color]

You see, that's my problem - Emdebian Crush is very customised. Crush
will take out big chunks of Debian (like perl :-)) and Crush involves
cross-building (or rebuilding) all relevant packages.

Emdebian Grip is quite different - Crush will be based on Grip (in that
the files taken out by Grip will also be taken out in Crush) but Grip
*only* removes files from packages, it doesn't change the functionality
or behaviour of the packages themselves. The files concerned
are /usr/share/doc/package/*, /usr/share/man/*, /usr/share/info/* etc.
and Grip will make use of TDebs, DEB_VENDOR and Dpkg::Class as that
support becomes available. Grip also sets Recommends to off. Packages
can be "gripped" after download from normal mirrors but that loses the
benefit of reducing the size of the package cache data and reduced sizes
of the downloaded packages themselves, so Grip will support a customised
mirror with fewer, smaller, packages.

I guess what are talking about here is the mirrors. Do all Blends use
unchanged Debian mirrors? If so, what are Blends blending?

Emdebian Grip will use the same kind of support as Blends - a customised
installer that uses the Grip mirror, customised package selection (XFCE
as the default "desktop" install), customised install setups (ext2
preferred over ext3 as many Grip devices will be solid state storage).

As such, Emdebian Grip could be the ideal choice for putting Debian onto
a netbook like the Aspire1 and Eee. Once things start to work, I'll be
using my Aspire1 to test Emdebian Grip and then see about working with
the Eee team to iron out the details. The idea will be to get a Debian
install onto a netbook without having to change the defaults or fiddle
around with post-install configuration - i.e. a USB/net installer that
does the right thing, out of the box.

Emdebian Grip *is* intended to be Debian, just 20% smaller (maybe 30% if
I can get it that small) and with support for the kind of tweaks that
small devices might need in order to run Debian (like ext2 and XFCE
instead of ext3 and GNOME/KDE). The intention is to have Grip generation
entirely automated, even working as a repository update hook.

Emdebian Crush is a derivative, yes. When released, it will be described
in the form: Emdebian 1.0 (based on Debian 5.0 "Lenny") etc.

I'm hoping that Grip will be seen differently - as a normal Debian
install, just smaller. Whatever changes might be necessary to actually
deploy Grip, I will be seeking to fold those changes into the relevant
Debian packages.

--


Neil Williams
=============
[url]http://www.data-freedom.org/[/url]
[url]http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/[/url]
[url]http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/[/url]



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkkYIlwACgkQiAEJSii8s+MaTgCg49AEApdQGul/uGloumAZzLa5
z58AoIOb4S5pxB4uF+XpNHsOgcIv/c9p
=rHlg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
[color=blue]
> I guess what are talking about here is the mirrors. Do all Blends use
> unchanged Debian mirrors?[/color]

Yes. What else would you expect if it says _inside_ Debian? A Debian
Pure Blend has no separate mirror - THIS is the basic idea of the concept.
[color=blue]
> If so, what are Blends blending?[/color]

All mixtures are inside the Debian package pool. Out of these mixtures
we want to fit the taste of a certain user group.
[color=blue]
> Emdebian Grip *is* intended to be Debian, just 20% smaller (maybe 30% if[/color]

There is no conflict. There are other things inside Debian than
Debian Pure Blends. Originally the concept was called "Debian Internal
Projects" [1] and originally the name "Custom Debian Distribution"
was invented to avoid mixing up these user oriented projects from
technical projects (like Emdebian, Debian-Installer, Debian-Live
etc.). It just turned out that the name CDD immediately caused the
wrong assumption (because of the distribution term) that it is a
distribution which is based on Debian but *different* and our main
focus is on telling people that we are *not* different.

So for you Emdebian was, is and will be a Debian Internal Project which
is listed at the place where it belongs to. This is what I wanted to
say when I asked for having a look at the doc[2] - the name is choosen
for a concept Emdebian does not really fit into.
[color=blue]
> The intention is to have Grip generation
> entirely automated, even working as a repository update hook.[/color]

To say it once more: I like your Emdebian effort but it is orthogonal
to the user specific field scope. For instance: We might consider
an Emdebian Med for medical stuff using embedded devices (which is in
fact very interesting).
[color=blue]
> I'm hoping that Grip will be seen differently - as a normal Debian
> install, just smaller. Whatever changes might be necessary to actually
> deploy Grip, I will be seeking to fold those changes into the relevant
> Debian packages.[/color]

I hope you do not feel discriminated - but it is just not true that
every project inside Debian now has to use the name we have choosen
for a specific internal concept.

Kind regards

Andreas.

[1] [url]http://www.debian.org/devel/#projects[/url]
[2] [url]http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/blends[/url]

--
[url]http://fam-tille.de[/url]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

Andreas Tille wrote:[color=blue]
> Yes. What else would you expect if it says _inside_ Debian? A Debian
> Pure Blend has no separate mirror - THIS is the basic idea of the concept.[/color]

so then call them 'Debian Foo' team, since this is what they are and no
different to the various teams we have already (where some of them are
not limited being 100% packaging oriented; e.g. kde team that releases
livecds).

everything else is, imho, useless waste of time explaining and defining
things in terminology that does not matter for 99% of the people here
(ymmv, no offence intended et al. i'm glad and thankful for what you do
in and arround debian, but the naming game isn't one of them).

Regards,
Daniel

--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: [email]daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net[/email]
Internet: [url]http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/[/url]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Daniel Baumann wrote:
[color=blue]
> so then call them 'Debian Foo' team, since this is what they are and no
> different to the various teams we have already (where some of them are
> not limited being 100% packaging oriented; e.g. kde team that releases
> livecds).[/color]

Strangely enough people are so keen on all this naming issues that the
technical part in the beginning of the announcement did not deserved
any comment so far. This fits perfectly into my observation that the
thread about renaming on the CDD list attracted more people than any
other technical topic before.

Your remark above just ignores that the concept tries to profit from
synergies inside these projects which for instance are reflected in
these tasks or bugs pages, a common technique to build metapackages etc.
The interesting thing in all the business I'm doing since several
years is that all the technical infrastructure which is used in Debian
Med and Debian Edu is instantly available for instance in Debian Science
or potential other projects. The main idea behind this stuff is that
we are factorising our tools to work for a specific $WORKFIELD$. This
makes a difference to technical projects like debian-live - and
strangely enough this concept seems to remain a well hidden secret
even if I'm constantly talking about this.
[color=blue]
> everything else is, imho, useless waste of time explaining and defining
> things in terminology that does not matter for 99% of the people here[/color]

The push in the work of the Debian Science team (which formerly just was
a simple mailing list) might be a clear sign that finding a common
structure based on common technologies is a successful method to push
a project.
[color=blue]
> (ymmv, no offence intended et al. i'm glad and thankful for what you do
> in and arround debian, but the naming game isn't one of them).[/color]

I did not felt offended and I accept that people do not like the
naming game. You can believe me that besides the business on the
mailing list a lot of other burden was on my shoulders and that I
personally was the one who hated this game even more than anybody
else here. If you had faced so many missunderstandings about the
things you want to promote just *because* the name implies a different
concept you are using for your project you would probably have drawn
the same consequence.

If we now would be able to continue *working* for the concept and
stop spending time criticising the name itself (the time for this is
over as I tried to explain) or the renaming process in general which
is definitely a waste of time I would be really happy.

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
[url]http://fam-tille.de[/url]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 13:28 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
> [color=green]
> > I guess what are talking about here is the mirrors. Do all Blends use
> > unchanged Debian mirrors?[/color]
>
> Yes. What else would you expect if it says _inside_ Debian? A Debian
> Pure Blend has no separate mirror - THIS is the basic idea of the concept..[/color]

That is where I found "Blends" confusing - it conjures up images of
mixing two different things into one. What you are describing is (to me)
more filtering or remixing, not blending. Maybe it's my professional
bias - I'm used to doing admixtures, blends, compounding and formulation
and the terms have quite specific (pharmaceutical) meanings.

A + B = C (blending A with B to make a new, bigger, C)

(Think blending chocolate into cake mix to get a chocolate cake or
blending a strawberry flavour into a cough mixture. What you get has a
larger volume/mass.)

What Blends is describing is actually something that is not possible
with "real-world" blending - substituting a strawberry flavour for a
raspberry flavour in an existing product - quite possibly reducing the
total volume/mass of the final product.

It works because the "product" (Debian) is itself a mixture that has
both flavours available and the blending happens *before* the real-world
product (the installation) exists:

D = (A + B + C)
M = (A + C)

where D == Debian and M could be Debian Med. Yes, A and C are being
blended together but they are already blended together in the bigger D -
it's just that D comes with B as the default and C as optional. (i.e.
anyone can install normal Debian and then install the Med packages on
top, what Debian Med wants to do is install the Med packages by default,
skipping the bits that are not necessary.)

That's more like deciding whether to make the cake with icing only in
the middle instead of jam in the middle and icing on top. Shuffling
components around and tweaking to make it fit. What Emdebian Grip does
is make a smaller cake, still with the jam and icing, whilst still
allowing you to skip the icing if preferred. (Emdebian Crush makes a
very small gluten-free cake without jam or icing - fundamentally
changing the nature of the result by modifying the ingredients
themselves.)

What M is doing is "raising the priority" of C so that it becomes the
default install, ahead of B. I can see that being useful in Emdebian
too.

Blending is a form of adding and mixing.

Blends appears to be about subtracting, remixing and customising.

In this respect, a Blend that prioritises XFCE ahead of GNOME and/or
ext2 ahead of ext3 would be a useful basis for Emdebian Grip.

There is still a grey area though - someone could easily run the
Emdebian Grip scripts on a Debian Med install after downloading from the
normal Debian mirrors, in order to reduce total installation size
without the benefits of reducing the cache data sizes. Indeed, the
scripts could run as a hook within the download process. Thankfully, I
don't think many people will want to do that (at least not for the
majority of packages) because it is quite wasteful of bandwidth and CPU
resources.

The disjuncture here is similar to how colours are blended in printers
versus in images. A printer / painting palette is closer to my
understanding of blending - you can only add, not subtract, so colours
get closer to black the more blending you do. An image palette works the
other way, the more colours you blend, the closer you get to white.

Blends works on RGB (light), blending works on CMYK (ink).

It is this topsy-turvy understanding of "blend" that was confusing me
and may well confuse others.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > If so, what are Blends blending?[/color]
>
> All mixtures are inside the Debian package pool. Out of these mixtures
> we want to fit the taste of a certain user group.[/color]

ok
[color=blue]
> So for you Emdebian was, is and will be a Debian Internal Project which
> is listed at the place where it belongs to. This is what I wanted to
> say when I asked for having a look at the doc[2] - the name is choosen
> for a concept Emdebian does not really fit into.
>
> To say it once more: I like your Emdebian effort but it is orthogonal
> to the user specific field scope. For instance: We might consider
> an Emdebian Med for medical stuff using embedded devices (which is in
> fact very interesting).[/color]

I'd never have thought about Emdebian Med - don't know why, but I always
had the impression that Debian Med packages were quite large. There is
certainly scope for such a variant.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I'm hoping that Grip will be seen differently - as a normal Debian
> > install, just smaller. Whatever changes might be necessary to actually
> > deploy Grip, I will be seeking to fold those changes into the relevant
> > Debian packages.[/color]
>
> I hope you do not feel discriminated - but it is just not true that
> every project inside Debian now has to use the name we have choosen
> for a specific internal concept.[/color]

I'm just trying to get it straight in my head. :-) Several people asked
me why I wasn't involved in the CDD (as was) discussion at DebConf8 and
I wasn't 100% sure myself, at the time.

I think I have it now though - Emdebian is one or two steps on from what
is now called Blends and Emdebian can use a Blend as a basis for a
flavour of Emdebian Grip.

Debian -> Emdebian Grip -> Emdebian Crush
or for Emdebian Med:
Debian -> Blends -> Emdebian Grip

--


Neil Williams
=============
[url]http://www.data-freedom.org/[/url]
[url]http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/[/url]
[url]http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/[/url]



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkkYPEcACgkQiAEJSii8s+MxAwCgs50+ASoAjYOoGOQpgtG5EeLy
c2cAoOZfsRiLt8IJ2DwuTocqXj3xRgK2
=uLj3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2008/11/10 Miriam Ruiz <miriam@debian.org>:
[color=blue]
> that I don't particurally like the game, but if it has been voted and[/color]

s/game/name/

Sorry,
Miry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

2008/11/10 Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de>:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I'm not exactly sure that I like the new name, to be honest.[/color]
>
> Well, the renaming was announced on debian-custom list and all lists
> of existing CDDs (also for instance on Debian Junior list[1]). And,
> yes, you are not the only one who is not really happy, but this name
> has won the poll and I also asked[2] whether "people insist on a
> condorset voting". So there was a chance to take some influence for
> people who are involved.[/color]

I know, I've been extremelly busy these last weeks and I couldn't join
the discussion. Please don't take my comment as an active opposition
to that name, it is not. In fact it doesn't bother me too much how we
call them, but it's the concept I'm interested in. All I was saying is
that I don't particurally like the game, but if it has been voted and
the rest of the people likes it, I can live with it :)

Greetings,
Miry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

Miriam Ruiz wrote:[color=blue]
> I'm not exactly sure that I like the new name, to be honest.
>[/color]
I saw the name and initially thought it was related to blender.

[url]http://www.blender.org/[/url]

Brian May


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

Andreas Tille wrote:[color=blue]
> Your remark above just ignores that the concept tries to profit from
> synergies inside these projects which for instance are reflected in
> these tasks or bugs pages, a common technique to build metapackages etc.[/color]

that's not my point; my point is that i don't see why a bunch of teams
in Debian that make use of a common set ot tools/technics/$whatever
should, just because of the fact that they use this common set, be
carrying a special and confusing *different* name than the other teams
terminology does.

or in other words: probably every team is using/sharing some piece of
tools/technics/$whatever with another team or that another team uses too
- overlapping is always good and often happens. so why make some teams
special and name them different?
[color=blue]
> If we now would be able to continue *working* for the concept and
> stop spending time criticising the name itself (the time for this is
> over as I tried to explain) or the renaming process in general which
> is definitely a waste of time I would be really happy.[/color]

again no offence intendet, but this is why this comes up all the time:
you discuss something on your sub-project internal mailinglist that
nobody else except sub-project members reads, then you guys decide on
something, and present the result on d-d-a. since the topic is far
broader and covers more people than just the already existing
sub-projects, all other people do feel the need to discuss this as
*they* see it the first time (through the d-d-a posting). the excact
same situation happened when you announced 'dish' at debconf.

to avoid such things, especially with defining naming terminology for
things that covers such broad aspects of debian, a poll on your
sub-project only mailinglists is probably not enough, and imho at least
one of either d-devel or d-project should be CC'ed too to get peoples
awareness *in the first place* and right at the beginning of the
decission making, and not at the end.

Regards,
Daniel

--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: [email]daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net[/email]
Internet: [url]http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/[/url]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Daniel Baumann wrote:
[color=blue]
> to avoid such things, especially with defining naming terminology for
> things that covers such broad aspects of debian, a poll on your
> sub-project only mailinglists is probably not enough, and imho at least
> one of either d-devel or d-project should be CC'ed too to get peoples
> awareness *in the first place* and right at the beginning of the
> decission making, and not at the end.[/color]

Ahh, OK - got the point. I do not assume that another renaming process
will be done any time soon - but if something else happens that might
interest more people I might consider CCing debian-{devel,project}. I
just hesitated to CC more than 6 lists (these were clearly related) and
I'm afraid that other people would have considered this kind of mails
as spam, but perhaps it makes sense to reach even more people.

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
[url]http://fam-tille.de[/url]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]