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

I'm not dead yet! (with apologies to Monty Python)

On 13/11/15 06:35 AM, Nick Bailey wrote:
> I only used debian-live once, and it worked perfectly for the purpose I 
> needed. It's a shame when working code disappears to be replaced by an 
> officially improved, unreliable, little-tested alternative.

I've seen a lot of misinformation swirling around the sad news that
Daniel has given up on Debian Live. So let's just get a couple of things

live-build has not disappeared. live-build has not been replaced.

While it is true the Debian CD team has its own plans to address what
they have identified as deficiencies in the current toolchain that made
it unsuitable for their needs, and are developing live-wrapper around
vmdebootstrap to try to address those needs, live-build has not been
removed from the archive, nor has anyone threatened to remove it from
the archive. Furthermore, while it is certainly less than ideal from
Debian's perspective that the lead upstream developer has quit, so long
as the software has value to Debian's users and contributors are willing
to keep it in good shape, it could remain in the archive indefinitely.

What happens next is, if nobody steps forward to take over as upstream,
live-build becomes the responsibility of the Debian QA team for as long
as they still have the resources to support it. I'm not saying this
definitely will happen, but just that it is among the possibilities.
That is, be assured, Debian has mechanisms in place to try to ensure
that users don't get shafted if upstream suddenly vanishes.

So please, everyone who is anxious about what happens in the coming
months, remain calm about this and let's not spread disinformation. If
the Debian CD team succeeds in their efforts and produces a replacement
that is viable, reliable, well-tested, and a suitable candidate to
replace live-build, this can only be good for Debian. If they are doing
their job, they will not "[replace live-build with] an officially
improved, unreliable, little-tested alternative". I've seen no evidence
so far that they operate that way. And in the meantime, live-build
remains in the archive -- there is no hurry to remove it, so long as it
remains in good shape, and there is not yet an improved successor to
replace it.


P.S. I know a lot of us are stirred up inside over this. Many people
have vented their frustration here with how things were handled, and are
sad, angry and confused. I think feelings are running so high it's
almost impossible to have any productive public discussion about what
went wrong and what it means to the project. Not right now. Maybe in
time, we can sort it out. My purpose in this email is to try to help
continue to provide support, not debate who did what to whom and get
sucked down into a drama vortex. I've had some positive private
discussions with a few team members I've been close to, and I've found
that helpful in sorting out my own thoughts and feelings, in being
supportive to them, and getting closure where some of those members have
decided to move on to other things now.

P.P.S. There continues to be a vibrant community of user/developers that
hang out on irc, channel #debian-live @ irc.oftc.net. We've been
tackling issues that concern debian-live users and developers, without
discrimination against either live-build or live-wrapper. If you are
interested in use or development of either of these packages, we welcome

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: