Re: Debian built from non-Debian sources
Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> writes:
> I still believe that libisofs are closer tied to our product than to our
> surrounding services: We (or derivatives) may upgrade/replace/skip
> Apache or dak or Alioth and still deliver an identical product, but
> upgrading libisofs may directly cause an image to fail or succeed.
> Isn't that exactly the reason you have chosen to not rely on Debian
> packages but stayed in close contact with upstream and custom compiled
> versions for use in the release process?
Maybe it just depends on one's perspective, but with my Debian user hat
on, I interact with the output of dak and its integrations with apt and
debootstrap and the like *way* more often than I interact with the
installer. The output of libisofs is something I use every year or two;
the output of dak is something I consume multiple times per day.
Not arguing that you're wrong about the close link between libisofs and
our product, but I do think that any argument you can make about it
applies about equally well to dak. They're both "just" ways of shipping a
set of Debian packages in a particular consumable configuration used by
key components of our distribution.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: