Re: live-wrapper - RFE - Arch boot automatic detection
On 19/11/15 07:13 AM, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> On 18/11/15 11:04 PM, Michael . wrote:
>> I must have misunderstood the importance to Debian of having a "Live"
>> system.
> I didn't say it wasn't important for Debian to have one. I only spoke to
> the relative importance of libc6 vs. live-build and therefore what sort
> of official Debian response there needs to be in this situation. Debian
> contains lots of important software, including live-build. Debian does
> not issue official statements about upstream changes for many of them.
> In the specific case of eglibc, a statement was warranted and therefore
> issued because that had broad impact on the project as a whole. I don't
> believe live-build is in the same category because it is a broadly used
> piece of infrastructure that many other Debian packages depend upon. But
> I'll reiterate, this is just my personal opinion.
Sorry, I meant to say here "[live-build] *is not* a broadly used piece
of infrastructure that many other Debian packages depend upon."
That is to say, while live-build is important software, and while it is
important for Debian to have live images, we, the live-build
user/developer community are a tiny fraction of the greater community.
I think if there were a real threat that Debian would somehow not
release with any live images next release, or with poorer quality images
next release, that's an issue Debian as a whole should be concerned
about preventing. I haven't seen any evidence so far that this is a real
threat, for the reasons I have already argued.
Ben
Reply to: