On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 02:20:26PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote: > I'd like to poll the audience if I may about if we should pull > wheezy-backports into the sources.list of the EC2 AMIs, and/or if should > pull in cloud-init from backports for today/tomorrows base AMI builds? > Many may feel passionately that a base AMI should be only including > packages from main and not from backports - but counter to this is that > this is not a general purpose image but specific for EC2? I'm definitely in the first camp: adding backports by default is a big depart from "regular" (i.e. non cloud) Debian images that we shouldn't do lightly. Generally speaking, I've no preclusion to having differences in the cloud images wrt regular Debian, but they should be justified with cloud-specific, or EC-2 specific in this case, needs. I hardly see why EC2 would need backports whereas regular Debian images don't. (Maybe they *both* need backports enabled by default, but then the change should be discussed more broadly and pushed everywhere.) Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature