On 11/12/2015 04:52 PM, kuLa wrote: > On 2015-11-12 15:58:03, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> As per the discussions during debconf, to be called "official", the >> images have to be built: >> - directly from an unmodified stable >> - with reproducibility on any Debian computer (ie: no need for any >> external infrastructure access) > > I don't think we reached any consensus in relation to the last point but I'm > not going to argue about it right now.
There's IMO no consensus to have, unless we change the root of Debian (ie: the DFSG, and the fact that we do free software, and can build it in Debian). The need for an external infrastructure would make the images non-free. SaaS on a proprietary platform is as non-free as one can get. I don't anyone would say otherwise, would you? > What I'd like to point out is that I don't think that right now it's possible > to build images for all cloud providers outside their infrastructure. In such a case, then the said providers shouldn't be granted the rights to have images called "official Debian". Maybe "backed by Debian", but certainly not "official", as I don't think anyone within the project would approve non-free software to be called "official Debian". > On 2015-11-12 16:01:50, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> Unfortunately, "driven by technological necessity", or the size of >> changes, isn't a point of argumentation (see my previous mail). All of >> the packages must be taken from stable, unchanged, and if some are taken >> from backports, this must be explicit, and the image shouldn't be called >> "stable Debian". Official, yes, but not stable (maybe stable + some >> backports would be ok...). > > Official Debian Cloud Image for [put your cloud provider] or just simply > Official Debian Cloud Image I don't think we should make any special rule for a given cloud provider. Either an image is (one of) the official one(s), made within the Debian infrastructure that *we* control, or it's not... Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
