I use very often all the Live images of many distributions (Debian and many others) to test admin software and new projects. Another scenario is testing a machine with Live media before deciding to install the distro&version. To develop Vinca, for example, I test it with Debian-Live 8.8 and 8.0 ; 7.11 and 7.0 ; 6, 5 ; Ubuntus from v4 to v17, etc. I launch dozens of virtual machines each one with one OS version & desktop to check the different behaviour of softwares and default configurations.
To answer questions too. When someone says in a list "I have # problem with LXDE in Debian 8" I can launch in seconds a VM with that scenario (thanks to Matromu too) and reproduce the problem. I'm very happy with Live ISOs (stable versions) but I'm not contributing as Steve asks for a reasonable involve of people. Live images are very important, but some users we have a very bad relation between benefit and contribution. I have no enough bandwidth here to download daily builds and test and feedback same day. Because of this I usually download only "stable" images. I hope my other contributions to the community compensate this. __________ I'm using this express-made address because personal addresses aren't masked enough at this list's archives. Mailing lists service administrator should fix this. El 26/06/17 a les 16:08, Steve McIntyre ha escrit: > [ Note the cross-posting... ] > > Hey folks, > > Background: we released live images for Stretch using new tooling, > namely live-wrapper. It is better than what we had before (live-build) > in a number of ways, particularly in terms of build reliability and > some important new features (e.g. UEFI support). But it's also less > mature and has seen less testing. There have been bugs because of > that. I have fixes for most of the ones I know about [1], and I'm > still working on more bugfixes yet. > > While the bugs are annoying, what worries me more is that they were > only spotted in release builds. There had been testing versions of > live images available for multiple weeks beforehand, presumably with > the same bugs included. (Almost) none of them reported. This shows > that we don't have enough people using these live images and/or caring > about filing bugs. > > We have a similar lack of involvement in terms of the content of the > live images. As I said above, I'm happy that we now have a reliable > tool for building our live images - that makes my life much > easier. But I honestly have no idea if the multiple desktop-specific > live images are actually reasonable representations of each of the > desktops. For example, I *seriously* hope that normal KDE > installations are not effected by #865382 like our live KDE > images. Validation by the various desktop teams would be useful here. > > The current situation is *not* good enough. I ended up getting > involved in live image production because the images needed making, > and I was already the main person organising production of Debian's > official images. To be frank, I had (and still have) no direct use for > the live images myself and I don't *particularly* care about them all > that much. Despite that, I've ended up spending a lot of time working > on them. A few other people have also spent a lot of time working in > this area - thanks are due to those people too. But it's still not > enough. > > If our live images are going to be good enough to meet the standards > that Debian users deserve and expect, we need *consistent*, > *sustained* involvement from a lot more people. Please tell me if > you're going to help. If we don't see a radical improvement soon, I'll > simply disable building live images altogether to remove the false > promises they're making. > > [1] > https://get.debian.org/images/release/current-live/amd64/iso-hybrid/#issues >