On 11/11/2015 12:01 PM, Richard Hartmann wrote: > Without any official hat, I agree with Md that the changes to the > installed packages seem reasonable, as sparse as possible, and driven > by technological necessity.
Unfortunately, "driven by technological necessity", or the size of changes, isn't a point of argumentation (see my previous mail). All of the packages must be taken from stable, unchanged, and if some are taken from backports, this must be explicit, and the image shouldn't be called "stable Debian". Official, yes, but not stable (maybe stable + some backports would be ok...). Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
