On 19/11/15 07:13 AM, Ben Armstrong wrote: > On 18/11/15 11:04 PM, Michael . wrote: >> I must have misunderstood the importance to Debian of having a "Live" >> system. > I didn't say it wasn't important for Debian to have one. I only spoke to > the relative importance of libc6 vs. live-build and therefore what sort > of official Debian response there needs to be in this situation. Debian > contains lots of important software, including live-build. Debian does > not issue official statements about upstream changes for many of them. > In the specific case of eglibc, a statement was warranted and therefore > issued because that had broad impact on the project as a whole. I don't > believe live-build is in the same category because it is a broadly used > piece of infrastructure that many other Debian packages depend upon. But > I'll reiterate, this is just my personal opinion.
Sorry, I meant to say here "[live-build] *is not* a broadly used piece of infrastructure that many other Debian packages depend upon." That is to say, while live-build is important software, and while it is important for Debian to have live images, we, the live-build user/developer community are a tiny fraction of the greater community. I think if there were a real threat that Debian would somehow not release with any live images next release, or with poorer quality images next release, that's an issue Debian as a whole should be concerned about preventing. I haven't seen any evidence so far that this is a real threat, for the reasons I have already argued. Ben
