Re: Debian images on Microsoft Azure cloud
On 11/15/2015 11:41 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 11:28:57PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 11/15/2015 06:50 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>> 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,
>>
>> AFAIK, they all do.
>>
>> If you can't upload a custom images, then it makes the cloud pretty much
>> useless.
>
> Regardless, I still think you should state the requirement in terms of
> the result, not in terms of how it's built. The "import image" thing was
> just an (arguably bad) example; but I can imagine other cases where
> things "have" to be built on the cloud provider's infrastructure, in the
> sense that for practical reasons it's the best way forward, but that it
> isn't theoretically the only possible way of doing so.
>
> In that light, I think a requirement that it be *possible* to build a
> bit-for-bit identical image while outside the given cloud infrastructure
> (even if for whatever practical reason we end up not doing so) makes
> much more sense.
Then we do agree. That's what I wanted to write.
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: