On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 19:20:03 -0300
Ben Armstrong wrote:
> All I was trying to convey is many live users have their own use cases
> and each one might think their own use case should be covered in the
> default images. But we do have a flexible set of tools that can be
> used to address everyone's
I asked to wait to hear what Daniel has to say. This whole thread has
been a lot of heat and very little light. I would ask again to please
wait to hear what he has to say.
I have perhaps overstated some of my points and gotten off track in my
zeal to explain why things are the way they are. I don
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:41:45 +0200
chals wrote:
> I think you are missing the point that Ben is patiently trying to make
> since the very beginning of this thread. He is talking about
> "flexibility" all the time whereas you seem to have those packages
> "hardcoded" in your argumentation.
If you
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:38 AM, wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 19:58:00 -0300
> Ben Armstrong wrote:
>
>> I'll recap and, I hope, sum up with a clarification of my point, as
>> you seem to have not gotten it:
>
> No, I get it. I answer every point you raise, so you keep on making up
> new and inc
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 19:58:00 -0300
Ben Armstrong wrote:
>> one of the things that people very commonly want to do with a live
>> ISO is access their existing filesystems, when they can't boot off
>> them for some reason. LVM and RAID are not rare or unusual; they are
>
On 28/08/13 08:07 PM, Daniel Reichelt wrote:
>> Maintained by someone (are you volunteering?) outside the Debian Live
>> project? Sure! Go for it! :)
>
> well, why not? will you sponsor me? i'm not a debian maintainer yet.
Maybe I was being a bit too flip. :) Even if we had a straight up
translat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Maintained by someone (are you volunteering?) outside the Debian Live
> project? Sure! Go for it! :)
well, why not? will you sponsor me? i'm not a debian maintainer yet.
Daniel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Commen
oot off
> them for some reason. LVM and RAID are not rare or unusual; they are
> standard for any serious installation.
>
> If this usage is not contemplated, then why include the ext{2,3,4}
> utilities on the desktop ISOs?
solution-oriented proposal: how about a new package ca
On 28/08/13 07:42 PM, Daniel Reichelt wrote:
> solution-oriented proposal: how about a new package called "task-rescue"...
> ...pulling-in all those historically abnormal packages? (pun intended .-) )
Maintained by someone (are you volunteering?) outside the Debian Live
project? Sure! Go for it! :
Because one of the things that people very commonly want to do with a
> live ISO is access their existing filesystems, when they can't boot off
> them for some reason. LVM and RAID are not rare or unusual; they are
> standard for any serious installation.
If they are "standard
>> ISO build lists.
>>
>> What objection could there be to that?
>
> Why task-live? What makes these "live" things. I'm just not seeing it.
Because one of the things that people very commonly want to do with a
live ISO is access their existing filesystem
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 06:04:33 -0300
Ben Armstrong wrote:
>> If you agree that it would be beneficial to include these packages in
>> the desktop ISO images, then surely it is the intended purpose of
>> "live-tools" to accomplish things like that.
>
> No, the intended purpose of live-tools is to p
On 28/08/13 04:37 PM, ian_br...@fastmail.net wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 06:04:33 -0300
> Ben Armstrong wrote:
>> No, the intended purpose of live-tools is to provide tools that must
>> behave differently in a live environment as alternatives for the
>> standard ones, or else other tools providin
On 28/08/13 12:37 AM, ian_br...@fastmail.net wrote:
> I note that all the live ISO images include a package called
> "live-tools", which is apparently maintained by the Debian Live Project.
>
> Could I suggest that "lvm2", "mdadm", and "parted" be listed as
> dependencies of this package, as "perl
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 23:29:05 -0300
Ben Armstrong wrote:
>> Then on what basis are the packages for the "rescue" live ISO
>> selected, since there doesn't seem to be any corresponding Debian
>> task package?
> Historical anomaly. See:
>
> http://live.debian.net/gitweb/?p=live-images.git
>
> It
On 27/08/13 10:34 PM, ian_br...@fastmail.net wrote:
> Then on what basis are the packages for the "rescue" live ISO selected,
> since there doesn't seem to be any corresponding Debian task package?
>
> http://www.debian.org/CD/live/
>
> http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current-live/amd64/iso-h
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 21:20:55 -0300
Ben Armstrong wrote:
> We don't pick and choose individual packages to include or exclude
> from the live images, but simply install what would be present in a
> default install of each of these desktops. So, for example, if the
> maintainers of task-desktop-gno
On 27/08/13 06:32 PM, ian_br...@fastmail.net wrote:
> These two packages would add about one megabyte each to the size of the
> live images. Those images are already too large to fit on a CD, so there
> is no particular reason why they could not be made 0.25% larger in order
> to include basic mass
sacrifice
the window manager in order to have them. Wanting to mount existing
filesystems is not specifically a "rescue" operation. Presumably the
graphical images include the ext{2,3,4} filesystems; why should LVM and
RAID, which are standard for any serious installation, be in a differ
19 matches
Mail list logo
