On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:23:10PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 14120 March 1977, 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.
>
Greetings,
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> There is no namespace issue, we are
On 14120 March 1977, 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.
It is worth noting that you do not declare such things. Such an attitude
To further cloud the issue, the Debian website still links to the Debian
Live project's website as the source of their live images.
Is there more than this one rude individual saying the Debian Live project
is being replaced?
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:59 AM, chals wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 a
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> There is no namespace issue, we are building on
I can not think of a worse way to go about doing this if your intent was a
collaboration with Debian-live! The only one here who has a right to any
hostility would be Daniel and others who have put a lot of effort into the
packages you freely admit you are building upon, instead of making
contribut
Out of curiosity, when did Debian become a dictatorship?
This decision seems to have been made behind closed doors in secrecy.
It appears to be the opposite of what Debian has been for it's history.
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Speaking as a fairly happy user of
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.
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.
>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.
This is a pretty big accusation. Considering Debian has Live images
available through its download page (https://www.debi
Hi,
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.
There is no namespace issue, we are building on the existing live-config and
live-boot packages that are maintained and
11 matches
Mail list logo
