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

Re: live-wrapper - RFE - Arch boot automatic detection

I apologise for any confusion caused by my previous reply.

With regards to a couple of points you have made in this, and your previous, post nothing about Live Build is clear anymore. Actually that is incorrect, the only thing that is clear is Daniel has given up with it as a Debian project and as the lead developer it seems Live Build as a Debian project is discontinued (remember we were told it was deprecated). Your Previous post on the issue of Live build mentioned something about people taking Live Build on, has this happened? Are you, personally, keeping Live Build going?

The splitting of the resource pool had happened well before anyone in Live Build (thats what the available evidence suggests) or its user community new anything about it. Debian CD split the pool of resources by making their own project (which they are entitled to do) and not assisting Live Build (which they are also entitled to do).

The discussions in coming months are a rather mute point now aren't they? What has happened has happened, what has been said has been said, and the users of Live Build are caught in the middle and are going to have to either wait for someone to fill them in or move to using Live Wrapper (which isn't really usable at the moment). My point here is this process of discussions over the coming months really needs to be quicker. It is unfair to people who depend on these tools to let this drag on. I'm simply not willing to start releasing iso images for a stable system for the South Pacific when the tool I've been building it on and getting people to test it with is in a state of limbo and the tool that is supposed to replace it isn't usable.

If Live Build lives on then great, if it doesn't then so be it. One day someone in the Debian project will provide some clear statements as to what is going on and then downstream projects like mine and many others can get on with their work without wondering if we can keep using the tool we have taken time to learn how to use or if we have to switch to another "live" tool and then learn new things.

Until we actually hear something definitive my project is officially on hold. The 2 "disjoint groups", as you called them, need to have these discussions and get to work sooner rather than later so the effects of this mess don't linger on. Please keep us informed.

On 19 November 2015 at 10:33, Ben Armstrong <synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca> wrote:
On 18/11/15 07:15 PM, Michael . wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong but I'm not sure this is the right list for
> this. Live Wrapper and Live build are 2 separate projects run by, or
> at least they were until Live Build has been discontinued, 2 differnt
> groups.

First of all, to clarify, "Live Build has been discontinued" is not yet
reality. It is slated to be replace as the software to build official
Debian Live CDs, but that doesn't mean that the software suddenly ceases
to exist. It will continue to be supported here the best we can, as I've
written about here before.

In my opinion, this is also the right list to support live-wrapper. It
is written here:


      Discussion and maintenance of the Debian Live systems

Development of the Debian Live systems (i.e. live cds).

The list is run by the Debian project for the purpose of supporting the
development and maintenance of "the Debian Live systems". That is not
clearly defined, but by the use of the definite article "the", some
specific software is implied. Since live-build is the specific software
that the current Debian Live CDs is built with, and live-wrapper is the
specific software that the Debian CD team intends to use to replace it,
it is a reasonable interpretation of "the Debian Live systems" as being
systems that are built with either software, the old and the new.

> If you want to message the Live Wrapper group I suggest you contact
> Debian CD and ask them what list is appropriate for your ideas and
> patches.

I don't see any justification for splitting our pool of expertise across
two disjoint groups. In coming months we will likely need to have many
conversations involving both the old and the new, and the resulting
cross-posting between groups would just be confusing, and hamper
development going forward.


Reply to: