Re: Debian images on Microsoft Azure cloud
On 11/13/2015 12:16 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Nov 12, Thomas Goirand <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> 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...).
>>> While this is techically true, I do not think that it would also be
>>> helpful in any way.
>> Helpful for who?
> Like, our users who are looking for Debian stable images.
They will find it, that's not a problem. Here, we're discussing about
the "swirl of approval", as per Richard's words which I think are very
nice. In other words, we're discussing what we can call official or not,
which is only a vaguely related discussion to having Debian as a choice
of possible OS in the cloud.
So, by all means, let every cloud provider do as they pleased (that's
free software anyway). But let's stamp only what we think represent
*our* collective work. And that's what we're discussing here.
>> I don't think it's helpful for the project to let $cloud-provider to do
>> as his pleased with our Debian trademark, and call whatever as "Debian
>> stable", just because it makes sense for the marketing department. We
> We build the images and we do call them "Debian stable" because it makes
> sense for our users.
And we shall not temper with the requirements to call something "Debian
Stable", otherwise, the meaning goes away.
>> have long established rules, I don't see why they wouldn't apply for the
>> "official Debian" cloud images.
> Because it would create a better experience for the affected users with
> no downsides?
This, IMO, is unrelated to user experience. This is related to what we
want to actively publish by ourselves, and call "official Debian". Some
derivatives of Debian are also very good, with an awesome user
experience. But they can't be called "official Debian".
On 11/12/2015 09:10 PM, Bastian Blank wrote:
> I find it interresting that you are re-enacting the great firmware
> wares of 2008, which could only be resolved after a lot of blood was
> If -backports is not stable, neither is -security, -updates or
> -proposed-updates. This also means that d-i does not install stable.
> Or that we have stable that can run on modern hardware (yes, my
> current desktop does not even remotely work with 3.16).
What I'm asking for, is only that a cat is called a cat. So if you are
creating a cloud images with stable + backports, state it clearly, don't
pretend it is "pure" stable, because it is not. There's nothing bad
about using stable-backports. If the image is made out of Debian, with
software that isn't even uploaded to Sid, then IMO, it can't be called
"official Debian", because it's effectively a derivative.
I don't see in what way this is related to non-free firmware. As much as
I know, most (if not all?) cloud provider deliver agents which are fully
free software, Microsoft included (let me know if I'm wrong here).
> Anyway, lets not forget: Our priorities are our users and free
That's exactly my priorities too. I just don't want to fool our users.
I'd like to call release artifacts with proper names and stamps. And I
would prefer all of the cloud provider to do the work to get these
stamps if possible (including Microsoft, hopefully with a work done by
Thomas Goirand (zigo)