Charles, let me clear up a couple of misconceptions for you. Debian Live (made with Live Wrapper) is an official Debian project. Live Build (the old Debian Live) apparently wasn't official but was recognised by Debian for its official images. Live Build is now officially part of Debian and Rafael Hertzog is the new developer maintainer of Live Build. As for reporting bugs because Debian Live (that uses Live Wrapper) is an official Debian project bugs should be reported through the bug tracker. That is the way it has been since Live Wrapper was first released. However people still do, and I have done it also, report issues with Live Wrapper in the Live mailing list. Hope that helps.
On 27 June 2017 at 21:54, Charles Chambers <ccha...@gmail.com> wrote: > And I'll add my 2¢ as an end user. > > The live images exist IMHO to test compatibility before committing to > installation, and to install what was just tested and demonstrated, > regardless of environment. It's a nice feature (arguably an essential > feature) that the actual install mirror *exactly* the tested compatibility > and appearance. To go with this, it *was* nice to be able to install in > the absence of a network connection or Internet service. > > The Live environment still works fine for testing for compatibility, > especially when the Nonfree repository is included. Installation, no > longer. > > My 2¢ is that installation suffers from a lack of testing, probably > because Debian Live is a "unofficial" branch off the development tree. > It's made worse because bugs for Live have no clear reporting process. > Where DOES one report a problem - to this mailing list, or the mailing list > more obviously suited (think a bug found while installing...report here, or > report to debian-install, or to debian-boot)? > > Inquiring minds want to know! <g> > > Charlie > > > > On Jun 26, 2017 12:55 PM, "Michael ." <keltoi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm not a dev but I am a user and I do test so I'll add my bit here. >> >> Let's be frank Live Wrapper only exists because of animosity within >> Debian towards the originator of Live Build (and to be honest his own lack >> of concern for what Debian required of Live Build). Live Wrapper was rushed >> and was never going to be ready for Stretch and in hindsight it was a >> little foolish to think it would be ready to build the types of images >> Debian required. Live Build wasn't up to scratch but the UEFI support issue >> has been fixed so what other issues are there with Live Build that makes it >> unreasonable to use? >> >> On 27 June 2017 at 00:08, Steve McIntyre <st...@einval.com> wrote: >> >>> [ Note the cross-posting... ] >>> >>> Hey folks, >>> >>> Background: we released live images for Stretch using new tooling, >>> namely live-wrapper. It is better than what we had before (live-build) >>> in a number of ways, particularly in terms of build reliability and >>> some important new features (e.g. UEFI support). But it's also less >>> mature and has seen less testing. There have been bugs because of >>> that. I have fixes for most of the ones I know about [1], and I'm >>> still working on more bugfixes yet. >>> >>> While the bugs are annoying, what worries me more is that they were >>> only spotted in release builds. There had been testing versions of >>> live images available for multiple weeks beforehand, presumably with >>> the same bugs included. (Almost) none of them reported. This shows >>> that we don't have enough people using these live images and/or caring >>> about filing bugs. >>> >>> We have a similar lack of involvement in terms of the content of the >>> live images. As I said above, I'm happy that we now have a reliable >>> tool for building our live images - that makes my life much >>> easier. But I honestly have no idea if the multiple desktop-specific >>> live images are actually reasonable representations of each of the >>> desktops. For example, I *seriously* hope that normal KDE >>> installations are not effected by #865382 like our live KDE >>> images. Validation by the various desktop teams would be useful here. >>> >>> The current situation is *not* good enough. I ended up getting >>> involved in live image production because the images needed making, >>> and I was already the main person organising production of Debian's >>> official images. To be frank, I had (and still have) no direct use for >>> the live images myself and I don't *particularly* care about them all >>> that much. Despite that, I've ended up spending a lot of time working >>> on them. A few other people have also spent a lot of time working in >>> this area - thanks are due to those people too. But it's still not >>> enough. >>> >>> If our live images are going to be good enough to meet the standards >>> that Debian users deserve and expect, we need *consistent*, >>> *sustained* involvement from a lot more people. Please tell me if >>> you're going to help. If we don't see a radical improvement soon, I'll >>> simply disable building live images altogether to remove the false >>> promises they're making. >>> >>> [1] https://get.debian.org/images/release/current-live/amd64/iso >>> -hybrid/#issues >>> >>> -- >>> Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. >>> st...@einval.com >>> "...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user' >>> as meaning someone who's only ever written one device driver." -- >>> Daniel Pead >>> >> >>
