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. Point being, I'm not some Daniel fanboy that just popped up out of nowhere. :)
However… On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 11:45:50PM +0000, 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. Can I ask why this matters? I have never before seen Debian take it lightly when a new project/package invades an existing package's namespace. I don't understand why it matters that live-build isn't a Debian project and live-build-ng is. I would have thought that a Debian project would be /more/ careful about following existing Debian customs regarding namespace. Isn't the existing custom to advise new packages to pick different names? > live-build has been deprecated by debian-cd, and live-build-ng is > replacing it. In a purely Debian context at least, live-build is deprecated. It seems to me like if there is an issue with live-build claiming to be some sort of official Debian project when it isn't, that could be solved by asking it to not claim that. Not making your own that deliberately takes over its name and goes out of its way to call it deprecated. As someone who is unaware of any previous hostilities and is just a user of live-build, what this thread tells me is that it isn't enough for people in Debian to come up with their own live project, they have to explicitly attack the current live-build. > live-build-ng is being developed in collaboration with debian-cd and D-I. Don't you think it is quite offensive to call something foo-ng when foo is clearly still alive? > I'm aware that I'm going to be upsetting people, but this has been a long > time coming and I'm not going to spend time bikeshedding over naming. I > would rather spend that time on integration of live image creation into > official Debian infrastructure and building the best system for live image > creation possible. It seems to me like it would be really quite trivial for you to pick a different name, so it need not take away any real time from your other activities. Speaking from the point of view of someone who currently uses live-build, I am no less likely to research live-build-ng just because it would have a different name. So… > Consider this thread marked as wontfix. …I don't really understand why things have to be so hostile, or why this escalation of hostility was necessary. :( Cheers, Andy
