On 14120 March 1977, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> It is worth noting that live-build is not a Debian project, it is an
> external project that claims to be an official Debian project. This is
> something that needs to be fixed.
It is worth noting that you do not declare such things. Such an
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 12:51:24PM +0200, Fathi Boudra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:18:32 +1100
> > "Michael ." wrote:
> >
> >> >There is no namespace issue, we are building on the existing
> >>
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:18:32 +1100
> "Michael ." wrote:
>
>> >There is no namespace issue, we are building on the existing
>> >live-config
>> and
>> >live-boot packages that are maintained and
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 12:41:16PM +0200, Fathi Boudra wrote:
> Would you (or Steve or the Debian CD team) please point to actual real
> bugs that affected you?
> You claim it as a reason of debian cd team switch to vmdebootsrap. As
> a live-build user, I'm interested by these.
As in my
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:23:10PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 14120 March 1977, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> > It is worth noting that live-build is not a Debian project, it is an
> > external project that claims to be an official Debian project. This is
> > something that needs to be fixed.
>
Greetings,
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 08:59:41 +0100
> chals wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Iain R. Learmonth
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Reading what
To further cloud the issue, the Debian website still links to the Debian
Live project's website as the source of their live images.
Is there more than this one rude individual saying the Debian Live project
is being replaced?
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:59 AM, chals wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 08:59:41 +0100
chals wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Iain R. Learmonth
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It is worth noting that live-build is not a Debian project, it is an
> > external project that claims to be an official Debian
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 08:47:53PM +1100, Michael . wrote:
>Yet the Debian CD webpage points directly to Debian Live iso images as
>official images even though you or Iain have said they are not
>official. You haven't found a solution, you haven't even got a Live iso
>image
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 08:59:41 +0100
> chals wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Iain R. Learmonth
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > It is worth noting that live-build is not a
>See http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/experimental-live/. These are far too
>experimental currently for public consumption and so not listed on the
>website.
2 things. 1st, it looks like that page popped up yesterday.
2nd, if they are experimental they are absolutely no good in any way shape
or
Greetings,
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It is worth noting that live-build is not a Debian project, it is an
> external project that claims to be an official Debian project. This is
> something that needs to be fixed.
>
> There is no
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Daniel Baumann
wrote:
>
> but given the situation, i understand that argueing about this hijack is
> futile then.
>
> it would have been more honest to actually talk to us (we're doing this
> since almost 10 years now), and
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It is worth noting that live-build is not a Debian project, it is an
> external project that claims to be an official Debian project. This is
> something that needs to be fixed.
>
> There is no namespace issue,
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:18:32 +1100
"Michael ." wrote:
> >There is no namespace issue, we are building on the existing
> >live-config
> and
> >live-boot packages that are maintained and bringing these into
> >Debian as native projects. If necessary, these will be forks, but
>No, in the Debian project, no team has exclusive rights over package
>namespaces - filename conflicts are different. Namespacing should be
>consistent with the purpose of the package to avoid confusion.
>live-build-ng is the next generation of build tool for live images. The
>name is appropriate.
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 10:40:36 +0100
> Daniel Baumann wrote:
>
>> Hi Ian,
>>
>> nice to see you're interested in live-* stuff. however, please
>> consider renaming this package
For what its worth I tried to do a clean Jessie-Live install last week and
it didn't install because my PC is UEFI. I then downloaded a regular Debian
Jessie DVD (and even a Wheezy CD) and they both installed on my UEFI
system without any problems. If there are Jessie Live DVDs that will
install
I can not think of a worse way to go about doing this if your intent was a
collaboration with Debian-live! The only one here who has a right to any
hostility would be Daniel and others who have put a lot of effort into the
packages you freely admit you are building upon, instead of making
Out of curiosity, when did Debian become a dictatorship?
This decision seems to have been made behind closed doors in secrecy.
It appears to be the opposite of what Debian has been for it's history.
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Speaking as
Hi,
It is worth noting that live-build is not a Debian project, it is an
external project that claims to be an official Debian project. This is
something that needs to be fixed.
There is no namespace issue, we are building on the existing live-config and
live-boot packages that are maintained
>It is worth noting that live-build is not a Debian project, it is an
>external project that claims to be an official Debian project. This is
>something that needs to be fixed.
This is a pretty big accusation. Considering Debian has Live images
available through its download page
Hello,
Speaking as a fairly happy user of live-build, but not a contributor
to it. I also don't know anything about live-build-ng yet so it is
perhaps worth mentioning that while I always got the live-build
support I needed, I did always feel that Daniel was perhaps a bit
too brusque with people.
Hello,
Speaking as a fairly happy user of live-build, but not a contributor
to it. I also don't know anything about live-build-ng yet so it is
perhaps worth mentioning that while I always got the live-build
support I needed, I did always feel that Daniel was perhaps a bit
too brusque with people.
On 11/07/2015 12:33 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
> There is an explicit reason for this. vmdebootstrap is being extended
> explicitly to provide support for a replacement for live-build. This
> work is happening within the debian-cd team to be able to solve the
> existing problems with live-build.
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 10:40:36 +0100
Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> nice to see you're interested in live-* stuff. however, please
> consider renaming this package (and also src:live-support), it
> invades/hijacks the Debian Live namespace.
There is
Hi Ian,
nice to see you're interested in live-* stuff. however, please consider
renaming this package (and also src:live-support), it invades/hijacks
the Debian Live namespace.
I'm sure you can come up with a suitable namespace on your own, e.g.
vmdebootstrap-live and vmdebootstrap-live-support
27 matches
Mail list logo