Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> writes: > I still believe that libisofs are closer tied to our product than to our > surrounding services: We (or derivatives) may upgrade/replace/skip > Apache or dak or Alioth and still deliver an identical product, but > upgrading libisofs may directly cause an image to fail or succeed. > Isn't that exactly the reason you have chosen to not rely on Debian > packages but stayed in close contact with upstream and custom compiled > versions for use in the release process?
Maybe it just depends on one's perspective, but with my Debian user hat on, I interact with the output of dak and its integrations with apt and debootstrap and the like *way* more often than I interact with the installer. The output of libisofs is something I use every year or two; the output of dak is something I consume multiple times per day. Not arguing that you're wrong about the close link between libisofs and our product, but I do think that any argument you can make about it applies about equally well to dak. They're both "just" ways of shipping a set of Debian packages in a particular consumable configuration used by key components of our distribution. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
