Re: Debian images on Microsoft Azure cloud
On 11/12/2015 04:52 PM, kuLa wrote:
> On 2015-11-12 15:58:03, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> As per the discussions during debconf, to be called "official", the
>> images have to be built:
>> - directly from an unmodified stable
>> - with reproducibility on any Debian computer (ie: no need for any
>> external infrastructure access)
>
> I don't think we reached any consensus in relation to the last point but I'm
> not going to argue about it right now.
There's IMO no consensus to have, unless we change the root of Debian
(ie: the DFSG, and the fact that we do free software, and can build it
in Debian). The need for an external infrastructure would make the
images non-free. SaaS on a proprietary platform is as non-free as one
can get. I don't anyone would say otherwise, would you?
> What I'd like to point out is that I don't think that right now it's possible
> to build images for all cloud providers outside their infrastructure.
In such a case, then the said providers shouldn't be granted the rights
to have images called "official Debian". Maybe "backed by Debian", but
certainly not "official", as I don't think anyone within the project
would approve non-free software to be called "official Debian".
> On 2015-11-12 16:01:50, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Unfortunately, "driven by technological necessity", or the size of
>> changes, isn't a point of argumentation (see my previous mail). All of
>> the packages must be taken from stable, unchanged, and if some are taken
>> from backports, this must be explicit, and the image shouldn't be called
>> "stable Debian". Official, yes, but not stable (maybe stable + some
>> backports would be ok...).
>
> Official Debian Cloud Image for [put your cloud provider] or just simply
> Official Debian Cloud Image
I don't think we should make any special rule for a given cloud
provider. Either an image is (one of) the official one(s), made within
the Debian infrastructure that *we* control, or it's not...
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: