On Nov 12, Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> wrote: > >> 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...). > > While this is techically true, I do not think that it would also be > > helpful in any way. > Helpful for who? Like, our users who are looking for Debian stable images.
> I don't think it's helpful for the project to let $cloud-provider to do > as his pleased with our Debian trademark, and call whatever as "Debian > stable", just because it makes sense for the marketing department. We We build the images and we do call them "Debian stable" because it makes sense for our users. > have long established rules, I don't see why they wouldn't apply for the > "official Debian" cloud images. Because it would create a better experience for the affected users with no downsides? -- ciao, Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
