Roland Clobus <rclobus@rclobus.nl> writes: > Hello Simon, > > On 10/03/2025 10:57, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes: >>> Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> writes: >>> >>>> While this may be fine to you it is not fine to me, and it is fine to >>>> disagree on that. >>> >>> If there were a method of building images that did not touch the >>> non-free components, I presume that would satisfy you. >> That sounds good! > ... > > Thanks Phil for adding this suggestion to the discussion. > > I'm one of the active developers of the tool 'live-build', which is > used to generate the live images. > > I can help you that get started. Hi Roland. Thank you! What is the relationship between the netinst images and the live images? These seems to be prepared by different tools and teams? I'm mostly interested in reproducing my own netinst images (preferably in a GitLab pipeline) but if debian-live images are significantly easier to build than netinst images, or has other nicer properties (reproducible?) then that could work too. The live images contain a debian-installer too, right? I worry that the live images are larger than the netinst images, and for me it helps to focus on the smallest thing that address my needs (in the hope that this is easier to get working than a larger thing). > However, it is the quality assurance and the user support part that is > most of the work. We have nearly reached the level of quality > assurance, that it would be possible to reverse the order the images > are handled. > At this moment the images are 1) generated, 2) published, 3) > tested. In some (nearish) future, the order would be 1) generated, 2) > tested, 3) published. > Even though openQA [2] helps in automating some tests, there is a lot > of test coverage missing (and computing power as well). Yeah, I can fully sympathize with QA concerns. /Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature