Aw: Re: Adding cloud-init in the next Wheezy point release
I am with Adam. Instead of changing what a release means to us by talking about individual packages to somehow by some exception sneak in after the release date, we should instead strengthen what backports.debian.org means to us and offer those important packages immediately and officially through that channel. However, I would tend to agree with a semi-automated transition from backports to point releases.
Gesendet: Dienstag, 07. Mai 2013 um 14:16 Uhr
Von: "Adam D. Barratt" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
An: "Thomas Goirand" <email@example.com>
Cc: "Debian Release" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
Betreff: Re: Adding cloud-init in the next Wheezy point release
On 2013-05-06 17:19, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> In this thread:
> we have been discussing how we could have cloud-init in the Debian
> One solution is to enable wheezy-backports by default in the images.
> Though there are some concerns that we shouldn't do that, as this
> the default in Debian right now.
If it's just to pull the package in during image build, is that a
> The other solution would be to add cloud-init in the next point
> of Wheezy. We all know that there's some strong rules that we
> add new things in the stable distribution, even more after the
I assume you mean after the release? It's a little late to worry about
being after the freeze.
> However, there has been some exception, like for example for the
> which includes new drivers. I believe we are in this kind of
> where the package is a crucial piece, without which the Debian cloud
> images will never work. Building an official Debian cloud image
> it is not an option, unfortunately. Cloud-init is indeed an industry
> standard, as described in the above thread, and is mandatory.
The kernel's slightly different; it's also changing content, not
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but during the cycles
I've been involved with Debian one new package has been introduced after
a release and that was for a _very_ particular purpose - in fact, it was
introduced by the security team in a DSA (openssh-blacklist).
If cloud-init is so mission-critical, why was this never noticed or
raised *before* the release?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
Archive: [🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org">http://email@example.com[http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org]