Hi, On Thu Nov 26, 2015 at 00:06:31 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 04:01:50PM +0100, Thomas Goirand a écrit : > > > > 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...). > > Hi Thomas and everybody, > > in practice, the Debian "Stable" images for AWS and now Azure contain bits > that > are not from Stable, for instance the cloud-init backport. Thus, the current > consensus is to call Debian "Stable" the images where all extra additions are > justified. > > I agree that it is not ideal, and that it would be much simpler if "Debian > Stable" meant that 100% of the system originates from the material present or > referenced in <http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/main/>. In the case > of a standard Debian installation, this point is true since Debian-Installer > itself is distributed under the above URL (although if I remember correctly, > its sources are not). > > Would it make sense to mimick this for image generators like bootstrap-vz and > the like ? I am not sure if it would be a good idea since it would give extra > work and complications (for instance, who decides when an update is adequate, > etc.). What do other people think ?
what about accepting those packages into debian-updates? Cheers, Martin -- Martin Zobel-Helas <zo...@debian.org> Debian System Administrator Debian & GNU/Linux Developer Debian Listmaster http://about.me/zobel Debian Webmaster GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B
