>> curious where that came from.
> In my reading this page does not describe a requirement, but a status.
> in a stable release of Debian [...].
they all currently happen to be expressed as metapackages"?
> And currently every released Pure Blend *has* metapackages, right?
of purely stable packages - none of which are metapackages).
than an observation - which then may or may not be true in the future)?
How about dropping first sentence from above?
> A naming question: are there any "non-pure" blends yet?
configuration files (see bug#311188 for that kind of problem).
> | like on this page.
> interested in [Debian] [Pure] Blends.
> (or Blends, for short) are a solution for special groups ...".