Re: About non-Stable files in Cloud images: create a Blend ? Distribute image builders on ftp.debian.org ? More liberal Stable updates ? (Re: Debian images on Microsoft Azure cloud)
On Thu Nov 26, 2015 at 00:06:31 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 04:01:50PM +0100, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
> > Unfortunately, "driven by technological necessity", or the size of
> > 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...).
> Hi Thomas and everybody,
> in practice, the Debian "Stable" images for AWS and now Azure contain bits that
> are not from Stable, for instance the cloud-init backport. Thus, the current
> consensus is to call Debian "Stable" the images where all extra additions are
> I agree that it is not ideal, and that it would be much simpler if "Debian
> Stable" meant that 100% of the system originates from the material present or
> referenced in <http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/main/>. In the case
> of a standard Debian installation, this point is true since Debian-Installer
> itself is distributed under the above URL (although if I remember correctly,
> its sources are not).
> Would it make sense to mimick this for image generators like bootstrap-vz and
> the like ? I am not sure if it would be a good idea since it would give extra
> work and complications (for instance, who decides when an update is adequate,
> etc.). What do other people think ?
what about accepting those packages into debian-updates?
Martin Zobel-Helas <email@example.com> Debian System Administrator
Debian & GNU/Linux Developer Debian Listmaster
http://about.me/zobel Debian Webmaster
GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B