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

Re: Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Bug#804315: Namespace issues


On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 08:47:53PM +1100, Michael . wrote:
>    Yet the Debian CD webpage points directly to Debian Live iso images as
>    official images even though you or Iain have said they are not
>    official. You haven't found a solution, you haven't even got a Live iso
>    image listed on the official Debian cd site.

See http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/experimental-live/. These are far too
experimental currently for public consumption and so not listed on the

>    If the Debian CD team
>    truly believe that things have been lacking in Debian Live "for an
>    inordinate amount of time" one would think the people involved in the
>    Debian CD team would have communicated with the Debian Live team and
>    collaboratively worked with them to fix the issues.

Communication was attempted and failed. Serious problems include:

 #718225: live-build should authenticate files it downloads (from 2013)
 #731709: support uefi (from 2013)

Neither of these issues have been fixed.

>    This brings me back
>    to a previous point, if their has been communication between Debian and
>    Debian Live about any of this where is it?

In person at DebConf meetings and on the BTS.

>    If it is not available for
>    public viewing, as is all other Debian correspondence and decision
>    making as far as I am aware the only conclusion that can reasonably be
>    made is that a small number of people have deliberately taken it upon
>    themselves to hijack Debian Live without the Debian Live team even
>    knowing it is happening.

vmdebootstrap has been a work in progress for a good while now, and Daniel
at least was aware of this. It would appear this was not communicated to the

>    All I have asked for is proof, it is very
>    telling that you have been unable to show it. Is this because it
>    doesn't exist?

Updates on the Debian Trademark Policy will also be available soon to help
clarify what is and is not "Official Debian".

>    This is just another problem that is making me consider Devuan as a
>    viable alternative to Debian. Debian's decision making processes used
>    to be open and public, this most certainly appears to be behind closed
>    doors.

This is by no means normal for Debian, the problem here is that
communication was one sided where we did not see any progress on the issues
that were affecting the official live images and so we've ended up here.



Reply to: