On 13/11/15 06:35 AM, Nick Bailey wrote: > I only used debian-live once, and it worked perfectly for the purpose I > needed. It's a shame when working code disappears to be replaced by an > officially improved, unreliable, little-tested alternative.
I've seen a lot of misinformation swirling around the sad news that Daniel has given up on Debian Live. So let's just get a couple of things straight: live-build has not disappeared. live-build has not been replaced. While it is true the Debian CD team has its own plans to address what they have identified as deficiencies in the current toolchain that made it unsuitable for their needs, and are developing live-wrapper around vmdebootstrap to try to address those needs, live-build has not been removed from the archive, nor has anyone threatened to remove it from the archive. Furthermore, while it is certainly less than ideal from Debian's perspective that the lead upstream developer has quit, so long as the software has value to Debian's users and contributors are willing to keep it in good shape, it could remain in the archive indefinitely. What happens next is, if nobody steps forward to take over as upstream, live-build becomes the responsibility of the Debian QA team for as long as they still have the resources to support it. I'm not saying this definitely will happen, but just that it is among the possibilities. That is, be assured, Debian has mechanisms in place to try to ensure that users don't get shafted if upstream suddenly vanishes. So please, everyone who is anxious about what happens in the coming months, remain calm about this and let's not spread disinformation. If the Debian CD team succeeds in their efforts and produces a replacement that is viable, reliable, well-tested, and a suitable candidate to replace live-build, this can only be good for Debian. If they are doing their job, they will not "[replace live-build with] an officially improved, unreliable, little-tested alternative". I've seen no evidence so far that they operate that way. And in the meantime, live-build remains in the archive -- there is no hurry to remove it, so long as it remains in good shape, and there is not yet an improved successor to replace it. Ben P.S. I know a lot of us are stirred up inside over this. Many people have vented their frustration here with how things were handled, and are sad, angry and confused. I think feelings are running so high it's almost impossible to have any productive public discussion about what went wrong and what it means to the project. Not right now. Maybe in time, we can sort it out. My purpose in this email is to try to help continue to provide support, not debate who did what to whom and get sucked down into a drama vortex. I've had some positive private discussions with a few team members I've been close to, and I've found that helpful in sorting out my own thoughts and feelings, in being supportive to them, and getting closure where some of those members have decided to move on to other things now. P.P.S. There continues to be a vibrant community of user/developers that hang out on irc, channel #debian-live @ irc.oftc.net. We've been tackling issues that concern debian-live users and developers, without discrimination against either live-build or live-wrapper. If you are interested in use or development of either of these packages, we welcome you!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
