Re: IMPORTANT: Do live Debian images have a future?
I use very often all the Live images of many distributions (Debian and
many others) to test admin software and new projects. Another scenario
is testing a machine with Live media before deciding to install the
distro&version.
To develop Vinca, for example, I test it with Debian-Live 8.8 and 8.0 ;
7.11 and 7.0 ; 6, 5 ; Ubuntus from v4 to v17, etc. I launch dozens of
virtual machines each one with one OS version & desktop to check the
different behaviour of softwares and default configurations.
To answer questions too. When someone says in a list "I have # problem
with LXDE in Debian 8" I can launch in seconds a VM with that scenario
(thanks to Matromu too) and reproduce the problem.
I'm very happy with Live ISOs (stable versions) but I'm not contributing
as Steve asks for a reasonable involve of people.
Live images are very important, but some users we have a very bad
relation between benefit and contribution.
I have no enough bandwidth here to download daily builds and test and
feedback same day. Because of this I usually download only "stable" images.
I hope my other contributions to the community compensate this.
__________
I'm using this express-made address because personal addresses aren't
masked enough at this list's archives. Mailing lists service
administrator should fix this.
El 26/06/17 a les 16:08, Steve McIntyre ha escrit:
> [ Note the cross-posting... ]
>
> Hey folks,
>
> Background: we released live images for Stretch using new tooling,
> namely live-wrapper. It is better than what we had before (live-build)
> in a number of ways, particularly in terms of build reliability and
> some important new features (e.g. UEFI support). But it's also less
> mature and has seen less testing. There have been bugs because of
> that. I have fixes for most of the ones I know about [1], and I'm
> still working on more bugfixes yet.
>
> While the bugs are annoying, what worries me more is that they were
> only spotted in release builds. There had been testing versions of
> live images available for multiple weeks beforehand, presumably with
> the same bugs included. (Almost) none of them reported. This shows
> that we don't have enough people using these live images and/or caring
> about filing bugs.
>
> We have a similar lack of involvement in terms of the content of the
> live images. As I said above, I'm happy that we now have a reliable
> tool for building our live images - that makes my life much
> easier. But I honestly have no idea if the multiple desktop-specific
> live images are actually reasonable representations of each of the
> desktops. For example, I *seriously* hope that normal KDE
> installations are not effected by #865382 like our live KDE
> images. Validation by the various desktop teams would be useful here.
>
> The current situation is *not* good enough. I ended up getting
> involved in live image production because the images needed making,
> and I was already the main person organising production of Debian's
> official images. To be frank, I had (and still have) no direct use for
> the live images myself and I don't *particularly* care about them all
> that much. Despite that, I've ended up spending a lot of time working
> on them. A few other people have also spent a lot of time working in
> this area - thanks are due to those people too. But it's still not
> enough.
>
> If our live images are going to be good enough to meet the standards
> that Debian users deserve and expect, we need *consistent*,
> *sustained* involvement from a lot more people. Please tell me if
> you're going to help. If we don't see a radical improvement soon, I'll
> simply disable building live images altogether to remove the false
> promises they're making.
>
> [1] https://get.debian.org/images/release/current-live/amd64/iso-hybrid/#issues
>
Reply to: