Hello Steffan, Adam, I think the question for cloud images becomes: would we consider a Debian image with backports enabled in apt.sources *by default* and to have packages installed from backports to still be 'pure' Debian? I would think some would feel this is not.
This was much discussed prior to release, but the deep freeze meant that the package maintainer chose to go the backports route rather than ask for a freeze exception, which I understand. I suppose we have three options before us at this stage: 1) Use backports by default in apt.source in cloud images, and we bless this as still being Debian 2) Wait until the next point release, and see if cloud-init can be transitioned to main 3) Stay as we are, and wait until the next release in 2+ years time Personally, I am happy with #1, so long as the rest of the community is. Appreciate input from others. James On 7/05/2013 9:05 PM, "Steffen Möller" wrote: > I am with Adam. Instead of changing what a release means to us by talking > about individual packages to somehow by some exception sneak in after the > release date, we should instead strengthen what backports.debian.org means to > us and offer those important packages immediately and officially through that > channel. However, I would tend to agree with a semi-automated transition from > backports to point releases. > > Cheers, > > Steffen > > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 07. Mai 2013 um 14:16 Uhr > Von: "Adam D. Barratt" <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> > An: "Thomas Goirand" <z...@debian.org> > Cc: "Debian Release" <debian-release@lists.debian.org>, > debian-cl...@lists.debian.org > Betreff: Re: Adding cloud-init in the next Wheezy point release > On 2013-05-06 17:19, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> In this thread: >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-cloud/2013/05/msg00002.html >> >> we have been discussing how we could have cloud-init in the Debian >> cloud >> images. >> >> One solution is to enable wheezy-backports by default in the images. >> Though there are some concerns that we shouldn't do that, as this >> isn't >> the default in Debian right now. > If it's just to pull the package in during image build, is that a > particular problem? > >> The other solution would be to add cloud-init in the next point >> release >> of Wheezy. We all know that there's some strong rules that we >> shouldn't >> add new things in the stable distribution, even more after the >> freeze. > I assume you mean after the release? It's a little late to worry about > being after the freeze. > >> However, there has been some exception, like for example for the >> kernel >> which includes new drivers. I believe we are in this kind of >> exception, >> where the package is a crucial piece, without which the Debian cloud >> images will never work. Building an official Debian cloud image >> without >> it is not an option, unfortunately. Cloud-init is indeed an industry >> standard, as described in the above thread, and is mandatory. > The kernel's slightly different; it's also changing content, not > packages. > > I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but during the cycles > I've been involved with Debian one new package has been introduced after > a release and that was for a _very_ particular purpose - in fact, it was > introduced by the security team in a DSA (openssh-blacklist). > > If cloud-init is so mission-critical, why was this never noticed or > raised *before* the release? > > Regards, > > Adam > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cloud-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: > http://lists.debian.org/bed0e3745803b4d549b7cbc9cdf1b...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org[http://lists.debian.org/bed0e3745803b4d549b7cbc9cdf1b...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org] > > > -- /Mobile:/ +61 422 166 708, /Email:/ james_AT_rcpt.to
