Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news - Debian

This is a discussion on Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news - Debian ; 2008/11/10 Andreas Tille : > 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

  1. Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

    2008/11/10 Andreas Tille :

    > 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


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

    Greetings,
    Miry


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

  2. Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

    On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 11:53 +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
    > 2008/11/10 Andreas Tille :
    >
    > > 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

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


    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.

    http://www.emdebian.org/emdebian/flavours.html

    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
    =============
    http://www.data-freedom.org/
    http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
    http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/



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

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


  3. Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

    On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Miriam Ruiz wrote:

    >> 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

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


    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] http://lists.debian.org/debian-jr/2008/09/msg00003.html
    [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-custo.../msg00002.html

    --
    http://fam-tille.de


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

  4. Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

    On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Neil Williams wrote:

    > 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.


    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

    http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


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

  5. Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

    On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Neil Williams wrote:

    > I was never particularly clear on why "Custom" was a bad name to use.


    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] http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/blends/

    --
    http://fam-tille.de


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

  6. Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

    On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 12:32 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
    > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
    >
    > > I was never particularly clear on why "Custom" was a bad name to use.

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


    ok

    > 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.


    ack

    > IMHO Emdebian does not really fit into this.


    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.

    > To be a Debian Pure Blend
    > everything has to be inside (pure) Debian.


    For Emdebian Grip, this does apply (albeit that the scripts themselves
    are in development and waiting for the Lenny release before being
    uploaded).

    > 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.


    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
    =============
    http://www.data-freedom.org/
    http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
    http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/



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

    iEYEABECAAYFAkkYIlwACgkQiAEJSii8s+MaTgCg49AEApdQGu l/uGloumAZzLa5
    z58AoIOb4S5pxB4uF+XpNHsOgcIv/c9p
    =rHlg
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  7. Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

    On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Neil Williams wrote:

    > I guess what are talking about here is the mirrors. Do all Blends use
    > unchanged Debian mirrors?


    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.

    > If so, what are Blends blending?


    All mixtures are inside the Debian package pool. Out of these mixtures
    we want to fit the taste of a certain user group.

    > Emdebian Grip *is* intended to be Debian, just 20% smaller (maybe 30% if


    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.

    > The intention is to have Grip generation
    > entirely automated, even working as a repository update hook.


    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).

    > 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.


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

    --
    http://fam-tille.de


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

  8. Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

    Andreas Tille wrote:
    > 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.


    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: daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net
    Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/


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

  9. Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

    On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Daniel Baumann wrote:

    > 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).


    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.

    > everything else is, imho, useless waste of time explaining and defining
    > things in terminology that does not matter for 99% of the people here


    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.

    > (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).


    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.

    --
    http://fam-tille.de


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

  10. Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

    On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 13:28 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
    > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
    >
    > > I guess what are talking about here is the mirrors. Do all Blends use
    > > unchanged Debian mirrors?

    >
    > 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..


    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.

    > > If so, what are Blends blending?

    >
    > All mixtures are inside the Debian package pool. Out of these mixtures
    > we want to fit the taste of a certain user group.


    ok

    > 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).


    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.

    > > 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.

    >
    > 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.


    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
    =============
    http://www.data-freedom.org/
    http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
    http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/



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

    iEYEABECAAYFAkkYPEcACgkQiAEJSii8s+MxAwCgs50+ASoAjY OoGOQpgtG5EeLy
    c2cAoOZfsRiLt8IJ2DwuTocqXj3xRgK2
    =uLj3
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  11. Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

    2008/11/10 Miriam Ruiz :

    > that I don't particurally like the game, but if it has been voted and


    s/game/name/

    Sorry,
    Miry


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

  12. Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

    2008/11/10 Andreas Tille :
    > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
    >
    >> I'm not exactly sure that I like the new name, to be honest.

    >
    > 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.


    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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  13. Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

    Miriam Ruiz wrote:
    > I'm not exactly sure that I like the new name, to be honest.
    >

    I saw the name and initially thought it was related to blender.

    http://www.blender.org/

    Brian May


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

  14. Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

    Andreas Tille wrote:
    > 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.


    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?

    > 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.


    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: daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net
    Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/


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

  15. Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news

    On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Daniel Baumann wrote:

    > 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.


    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.

    --
    http://fam-tille.de


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

+ Reply to Thread