[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian images on Microsoft Azure cloud

Building images on external infrastructure has a solution to trust the
First build the builder OS environment in own infrastructure, and then
migrate it to external infrastructure to do the desired jobs.

I'm using this express-made address because personal addresses aren't
masked enough at lists.debian.org archives.

El 15/11/15 a les 18:50, Wouter Verhelst ha escrit:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:04:29PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> 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?
> Personally, I disagree with the statement that "the need for external
> infrastructure would make the images non-free".
> If a cloud platform does not make it possible to *import* images from an
> external source, then that requires that the image be built on their
> infrastructure, even if it would otherwise be possible to build the same
> image outside of their infrastructure. I wouldn't call that non-free, in
> very much the same way that building the image on a machine which
> requires non-free firmware to boot (such as a BIOS) would result in a
> non-free image.
> I believe a more sensible requirement would be that "it is theoretically
> possible to build a filesystem image on a cloud provider's
> infrastructure that is bit-for-bit the exact same thing as one built
> outside that infrastructure".
>>> 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".
> Sure.

Reply to: