Out of curiosity, when did Debian become a dictatorship?This decision seems to have been made behind closed doors in secrecy.It appears to be the opposite of what Debian has been for it's history.On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Andy Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:--Hello,
Speaking as a fairly happy user of live-build, but not a contributor
to it. I also don't know anything about live-build-ng yet so it is
perhaps worth mentioning that while I always got the live-build
support I needed, I did always feel that Daniel was perhaps a bit
too brusque with people. Point being, I'm not some Daniel fanboy
that just popped up out of nowhere. :)
On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 11:45:50PM +0000, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> It is worth noting that live-build is not a Debian project, it is an
> external project that claims to be an official Debian project. This is
> something that needs to be fixed.
Can I ask why this matters? I have never before seen Debian take it
lightly when a new project/package invades an existing package's
namespace. I don't understand why it matters that live-build isn't a
Debian project and live-build-ng is.
I would have thought that a Debian project would be /more/ careful
about following existing Debian customs regarding namespace. Isn't
the existing custom to advise new packages to pick different names?
> live-build has been deprecated by debian-cd, and live-build-ng is
> replacing it. In a purely Debian context at least, live-build is deprecated.
It seems to me like if there is an issue with live-build claiming to
be some sort of official Debian project when it isn't, that could be
solved by asking it to not claim that. Not making your own that
deliberately takes over its name and goes out of its way to call it
As someone who is unaware of any previous hostilities and is just a
user of live-build, what this thread tells me is that it isn't
enough for people in Debian to come up with their own live project,
they have to explicitly attack the current live-build.
> live-build-ng is being developed in collaboration with debian-cd and D-I.
Don't you think it is quite offensive to call something foo-ng when
foo is clearly still alive?
> I'm aware that I'm going to be upsetting people, but this has been a long
> time coming and I'm not going to spend time bikeshedding over naming. I
> would rather spend that time on integration of live image creation into
> official Debian infrastructure and building the best system for live image
> creation possible.
It seems to me like it would be really quite trivial for you to pick
a different name, so it need not take away any real time from your
Speaking from the point of view of someone who currently uses
live-build, I am no less likely to research live-build-ng just
because it would have a different name.
> Consider this thread marked as wontfix.
…I don't really understand why things have to be so hostile, or why
this escalation of hostility was necessary. :(
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting