Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Bug#804315: Namespace issues

[Antonio Terceiro]

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 12:51:24PM +0200, Fathi Boudra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Neil Williams  wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:18:32 +1100
> > "Michael ."  wrote:
> >
> >> >There is no namespace issue, we are building on the existing
> >> >live-config
> >> and
> >> >live-boot packages that are maintained and bringing these into
> >> >Debian as native projects. If necessary, these will be forks, but
> >> >I'm hoping that won't have to happen and that we can integrate these
> >> >packages into Debian and continue development in a collaborative
> >> >manner.
> >>
> >> Actually there is and I think any person who works in a legal capacity
> >> would verify that.
> >
> > No, in the Debian project, no team has exclusive rights over package
> > namespaces - filename conflicts are different. Namespacing should be
> > consistent with the purpose of the package to avoid confusion.
> > live-build-ng is the next generation of build tool for live images. The
> > name is appropriate.
> 
> Obviously, several users don't agree with you. There's a conflict of
> interest in the naming of your new package, which confuse established
> users base of live-build. live-build-ng isn't a drop in replacement of
> live-build, or live-build deprecated in any way (except its usage by
> Debian CD team).

I do agree that naming something $foo-ng indeed sends a very strong,
even if implicit, message about $foo, which is not the case here.

On the other hand, there is no good reason why this new tool _needs_ to
be called live-build-ng, so can you please call it something else?

-- 
Antonio Terceiro 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Bug#804315: Namespace issues

[Iain R. Learmonth]

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 12:41:16PM +0200, Fathi Boudra wrote:
> Would you (or Steve or the Debian CD team) please point to actual real
> bugs that affected you?
> You claim it as a reason of debian cd team switch to vmdebootsrap. As
> a live-build user, I'm interested by these.

As in my previous email:

 #718225: live-build should authenticate files it downloads (from 2013)
 #731709: support uefi (from 2013)

I am a member of the debian-cd team.

These are just two of the major bugs, the real problem we had is that
live-build is very fragile and did not produce much in the way of useful
output when things broke.

This is why there was a delay in the release of live images after the
release of jessie.

Thanks,
Iain.

-- 

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Bug#804315: Namespace issues

[Fathi Boudra]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Neil Williams  wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:18:32 +1100
> "Michael ."  wrote:
>
>> >There is no namespace issue, we are building on the existing
>> >live-config
>> and
>> >live-boot packages that are maintained and bringing these into
>> >Debian as native projects. If necessary, these will be forks, but
>> >I'm hoping that won't have to happen and that we can integrate these
>> >packages into Debian and continue development in a collaborative
>> >manner.
>>
>> Actually there is and I think any person who works in a legal capacity
>> would verify that.
>
> No, in the Debian project, no team has exclusive rights over package
> namespaces - filename conflicts are different. Namespacing should be
> consistent with the purpose of the package to avoid confusion.
> live-build-ng is the next generation of build tool for live images. The
> name is appropriate.

Obviously, several users don't agree with you. There's a conflict of
interest in the naming of your new package, which confuse established
users base of live-build. live-build-ng isn't a drop in replacement of
live-build, or live-build deprecated in any way (except its usage by
Debian CD team).

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Bug#804315: Namespace issues

[Neil Williams]

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 08:59:41 +0100
chals  wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Iain R. Learmonth 
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It is worth noting that live-build is not a Debian project, it is an
> > external project that claims to be an official Debian project. This
> > is something that needs to be fixed.
> >
> > There is no namespace issue, we are building on the existing
> > live-config and live-boot packages that are maintained and bringing
> > these into Debian as native projects. If necessary, these will be
> > forks, but I'm hoping that won't have to happen and that we can
> > integrate these packages into Debian and continue development in a
> > collaborative manner.
> >
> > live-build has been deprecated by debian-cd, and live-build-ng is
> > replacing it. In a purely Debian context at least, live-build is
> > deprecated. live-build-ng is being developed in collaboration with
> > debian-cd and D-I.
> >
> > I'm aware that I'm going to be upsetting people, but this has been
> > a long time coming and I'm not going to spend time bikeshedding
> > over naming. I would rather spend that time on integration of live
> > image creation into official Debian infrastructure and building the
> > best system for live image creation possible.
> >  

Apologies for making it look like Iain was the only voice on this. I've
been unwell this weekend and Steve has been busy with the miniDebConf
and is now (presumably) catching up on the sleep he lost whilst
organising it.

> Hi,
> 
> Reading what you say, and I beg your pardon before going on, I can
> tell that you absolutely have no idea about what the debian live
> project is or about its history. But well, I have to admit that if
> what you say is true, then you have a point.

I've been involved with debian-live before. I remember a meeting with
the live team at a previous debconf (Argentina?) where one of my
previous rootfs build tools [multistrap] was being considered for a
role within live but we didn't find a good match.

> You say "I'm aware that I'm going to be upsetting people, but this has
> been a long time coming"
> 
> Yes you are absolutely right, you are upsetting people, people like me
> who have contributed to debian for years and spent hours of effort to
> make things better.

Sorry, but I'm assuming you don't mean that Iain, Steve or I haven't
spent years contributing and uploading to Debian and years and years of
effort to make Debian better.
 
> "A long time coming"? Excuse me, but the first thing I've ever heard
> in all these years is that you and I mean you (not the debian cd team,
> who supposedly is responsible for this upheaval) 

It is the team. Steve has been asking me for this support in
vmdebootstrap for months and months. Every time there is a release or a
point release, I get more nagging because he has to struggle with
fixing live-*.

> shows up from out of
> the blue claiming that you have the right to do as you please and
> decide about the future of the debian live team.

Iain is not on his own. This comes from the debian-cd team. Steve has
been nagging me for vmdebootstrap support to replace live-build since
about a week after vmdebootstrap arrived in Debian, certainly before
the Jessie release.
 
> This is, from my point of view, an act of dictatorship and with my
> authority as a debian user and contributor for years I demand you step
> down from your position and ask for forgiveness to the debian live
> team for being so rude, impolite and not worthy of any more of my
> priceless words and time.

Not going to happen. Just what "authority" is a user meant to have?
Those who do the work in Debian earn the right to make the decisions on
how that work is done in Debian.

-- 


Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/



pgpXfaLZWlDhK.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Bug#804315: Namespace issues

[Neil Williams]

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:18:32 +1100
"Michael ."  wrote:

> >There is no namespace issue, we are building on the existing
> >live-config  
> and
> >live-boot packages that are maintained and bringing these into
> >Debian as native projects. If necessary, these will be forks, but
> >I'm hoping that won't have to happen and that we can integrate these
> >packages into Debian and continue development in a collaborative
> >manner.  
> 
> Actually there is and I think any person who works in a legal capacity
> would verify that.

No, in the Debian project, no team has exclusive rights over package
namespaces - filename conflicts are different. Namespacing should be
consistent with the purpose of the package to avoid confusion.
live-build-ng is the next generation of build tool for live images. The
name is appropriate.

> With regards to collaboration, considering this is the first many
> people have heard of this it seems to me you have not gone out of
> your way to integrate people who have been working on these packages
> into your project. As I said in my previous response to the Debian
> Live list (which btw last time someone used the word Debian in a
> unofficial capacity (Debian-Mulitmedia) they were asked to stop I
> haven't seen any requests like this to the Debian Live mailing list
> as yet) it would have been good if "instead of starting a new project
> the group from the new project would be much better off assisting
> with an already well established project
> 
> >live-build has been deprecated by debian-cd, and live-build-ng is
> >replacing it. In a purely Debian context at least, live-build is  
> deprecated.
> >live-build-ng is being developed in collaboration with debian-cd and
> >D-I.  
> 
> Just out of interests sake can you provide proof of this?

He just did. Iain speaks as part of the debian-cd team. The debian-cd
team deprecated live-build and have been looking for a replacement since
before the Jessie release. I made a set of changes which underpin that
support at DebConf15. Iain developed the code based upon that to
deliver the missing support which is required by the debian-cd team.
Job done. Well done, Iain.
 
> You seem to be very intractable. No discussion, no change of heart,

Correct.

What has happened here is that the debian-cd team have finally found a
solution to the provision of necessary support which has been lacking
from the debian-live project for an inordinate amount of time.

> not willing to discuss anything with people like Daniel who have been
> doing this for years. If there has been correspondence from any part
> of Debian and the team who are working on Debian-Live that shows this
> is not something new and out of the blue I'll be very surprised.

It's taken long enough already. There is no point waiting when the code
is now working.

-- 


Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/



pgpvwP231NoHb.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Bug#804315: Namespace issues

[Iain R. Learmonth]

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 08:47:53PM +1100, Michael . wrote:
>Yet the Debian CD webpage points directly to Debian Live iso images as
>official images even though you or Iain have said they are not
>official. You haven't found a solution, you haven't even got a Live iso
>image listed on the official Debian cd site.

See http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/experimental-live/. These are far too
experimental currently for public consumption and so not listed on the
website.

>If the Debian CD team
>truly believe that things have been lacking in Debian Live "for an
>inordinate amount of time" one would think the people involved in the
>Debian CD team would have communicated with the Debian Live team and
>collaboratively worked with them to fix the issues.

Communication was attempted and failed. Serious problems include:

 #718225: live-build should authenticate files it downloads (from 2013)
 #731709: support uefi (from 2013)

Neither of these issues have been fixed.

>This brings me back
>to a previous point, if their has been communication between Debian and
>Debian Live about any of this where is it?

In person at DebConf meetings and on the BTS.

>If it is not available for
>public viewing, as is all other Debian correspondence and decision
>making as far as I am aware the only conclusion that can reasonably be
>made is that a small number of people have deliberately taken it upon
>themselves to hijack Debian Live without the Debian Live team even
>knowing it is happening.

vmdebootstrap has been a work in progress for a good while now, and Daniel
at least was aware of this. It would appear this was not communicated to the
team.

>All I have asked for is proof, it is very
>telling that you have been unable to show it. Is this because it
>doesn't exist?

Updates on the Debian Trademark Policy will also be available soon to help
clarify what is and is not "Official Debian".

>This is just another problem that is making me consider Devuan as a
>viable alternative to Debian. Debian's decision making processes used
>to be open and public, this most certainly appears to be behind closed
>doors.

This is by no means normal for Debian, the problem here is that
communication was one sided where we did not see any progress on the issues
that were affecting the official live images and so we've ended up here.

Thanks,
Iain.

-- 

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Bug#804315: Namespace issues

[Fathi Boudra]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Neil Williams  wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 08:59:41 +0100
> chals  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Iain R. Learmonth 
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > It is worth noting that live-build is not a Debian project, it is an
>> > external project that claims to be an official Debian project. This
>> > is something that needs to be fixed.
>> >
>> > There is no namespace issue, we are building on the existing
>> > live-config and live-boot packages that are maintained and bringing
>> > these into Debian as native projects. If necessary, these will be
>> > forks, but I'm hoping that won't have to happen and that we can
>> > integrate these packages into Debian and continue development in a
>> > collaborative manner.
>> >
>> > live-build has been deprecated by debian-cd, and live-build-ng is
>> > replacing it. In a purely Debian context at least, live-build is
>> > deprecated. live-build-ng is being developed in collaboration with
>> > debian-cd and D-I.
>> >
>> > I'm aware that I'm going to be upsetting people, but this has been
>> > a long time coming and I'm not going to spend time bikeshedding
>> > over naming. I would rather spend that time on integration of live
>> > image creation into official Debian infrastructure and building the
>> > best system for live image creation possible.
>> >
>
> Apologies for making it look like Iain was the only voice on this. I've
> been unwell this weekend and Steve has been busy with the miniDebConf
> and is now (presumably) catching up on the sleep he lost whilst
> organising it.
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Reading what you say, and I beg your pardon before going on, I can
>> tell that you absolutely have no idea about what the debian live
>> project is or about its history. But well, I have to admit that if
>> what you say is true, then you have a point.
>
> I've been involved with debian-live before. I remember a meeting with
> the live team at a previous debconf (Argentina?) where one of my
> previous rootfs build tools [multistrap] was being considered for a
> role within live but we didn't find a good match.
>
>> You say "I'm aware that I'm going to be upsetting people, but this has
>> been a long time coming"
>>
>> Yes you are absolutely right, you are upsetting people, people like me
>> who have contributed to debian for years and spent hours of effort to
>> make things better.
>
> Sorry, but I'm assuming you don't mean that Iain, Steve or I haven't
> spent years contributing and uploading to Debian and years and years of
> effort to make Debian better.
>
>> "A long time coming"? Excuse me, but the first thing I've ever heard
>> in all these years is that you and I mean you (not the debian cd team,
>> who supposedly is responsible for this upheaval)
>
> It is the team. Steve has been asking me for this support in
> vmdebootstrap for months and months. Every time there is a release or a
> point release, I get more nagging because he has to struggle with
> fixing live-*.

Would you (or Steve or the Debian CD team) please point to actual real
bugs that affected you?
You claim it as a reason of debian cd team switch to vmdebootsrap. As
a live-build user, I'm interested by these.

>> shows up from out of
>> the blue claiming that you have the right to do as you please and
>> decide about the future of the debian live team.
>
> Iain is not on his own. This comes from the debian-cd team. Steve has
> been nagging me for vmdebootstrap support to replace live-build since
> about a week after vmdebootstrap arrived in Debian, certainly before
> the Jessie release.
>
>> This is, from my point of view, an act of dictatorship and with my
>> authority as a debian user and contributor for years I demand you step
>> down from your position and ask for forgiveness to the debian live
>> team for being so rude, impolite and not worthy of any more of my
>> priceless words and time.
>
> Not going to happen. Just what "authority" is a user meant to have?
> Those who do the work in Debian earn the right to make the decisions on
> how that work is done in Debian.

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Bug#804315: Namespace issues

[Michael .]

>See http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/experimental-live/. These are far too
>experimental currently for public consumption and so not listed on the
>website.
2 things. 1st,  it looks like that page popped up yesterday.
2nd, if they are experimental they are absolutely no good in any way shape
or form for people who want a reliable system.

>Communication was attempted and failed. Serious problems include:
>#718225: live-build should authenticate files it downloads (from 2013)
>#731709: support uefi (from 2013)
>Neither of these issues have been fixed.
Now we are getting somewhere. How many times do you need to be asked
something before you are willing to provide the evidence being sought? Did
you provide any patches to get fix any of the issues you speak of?

>In person at DebConf meetings and on the BTS.
Links please?

>vmdebootstrap has been a work in progress for a good while now, and Daniel
>at least was aware of this. It would appear this was not communicated to
the
>team.
And you were somehow incapable of posting to the Debian Live mailing list?

>Updates on the Debian Trademark Policy will also be available soon to help
>clarify what is and is not "Official Debian".
To little to late I'm afraid. You see the problem is you come out with
comments that you cannot backup, now you have to "update" a policy so you
appear to be in the right.

>This is by no means normal for Debian, the problem here is that
>communication was one sided where we did not see any progress on the issues
>that were affecting the official live images and so we've ended up here.
So the images created by the Debian Live team are official.
The problem here is the way you and your team have gone about this. Closed
door discussions about a project you personally were not a part of that is,
for all intents and purposes, an official part of Debian until you or
someone else can "update" a policy to force it out of Debian. Do you not
see why people are angry with this.

You and your team have done Debian a huge disservice the way you have gone
about this. If this is how Debian works now I'm going to have to seriously
consider my proselytising on its behalf.


On 9 November 2015 at 21:17, Iain R. Learmonth  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 08:47:53PM +1100, Michael . wrote:
> >Yet the Debian CD webpage points directly to Debian Live iso images as
> >official images even though you or Iain have said they are not
> >official. You haven't found a solution, you haven't even got a Live
> iso
> >image listed on the official Debian cd site.
>
> See http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/experimental-live/. These are far
> too
> experimental currently for public consumption and so not listed on the
> website.
>
> >If the Debian CD team
> >truly believe that things have been lacking in Debian Live "for an
> >inordinate amount of time" one would think the people involved in the
> >Debian CD team would have communicated with the Debian Live team and
> >collaboratively worked with them to fix the issues.
>
> Communication was attempted and failed. Serious problems include:
>
>  #718225: live-build should authenticate files it downloads (from 2013)
>  #731709: support uefi (from 2013)
>
> Neither of these issues have been fixed.
>
> >This brings me back
> >to a previous point, if their has been communication between Debian
> and
> >Debian Live about any of this where is it?
>
> In person at DebConf meetings and on the BTS.
>
> >If it is not available for
> >public viewing, as is all other Debian correspondence and decision
> >making as far as I am aware the only conclusion that can reasonably be
> >made is that a small number of people have deliberately taken it upon
> >themselves to hijack Debian Live without the Debian Live team even
> >knowing it is happening.
>
> vmdebootstrap has been a work in progress for a good while now, and Daniel
> at least was aware of this. It would appear this was not communicated to
> the
> team.
>
> >All I have asked for is proof, it is very
> >telling that you have been unable to show it. Is this because it
> >doesn't exist?
>
> Updates on the Debian Trademark Policy will also be available soon to help
> clarify what is and is not "Official Debian".
>
> >This is just another problem that is making me consider Devuan as a
> >viable alternative to Debian. Debian's decision making processes used
> >to be open and public, this most certainly appears to be behind closed
> >doors.
>
> This is by no means normal for Debian, the problem here is that
> communication was one sided where we did not see any progress on the issues
> that were affecting the official live images and so we've ended up here.
>
> Thanks,
> Iain.
>
> --
>

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Bug#804315: Namespace issues

[Richard Nelson]

Greetings,

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Neil Williams  wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 08:59:41 +0100
> chals  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Iain R. Learmonth 
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >





> > Hi,
> >
> > Reading what you say, and I beg your pardon before going on, I can
> > tell that you absolutely have no idea about what the debian live
> > project is or about its history. But well, I have to admit that if
> > what you say is true, then you have a point.
>
> I've been involved with debian-live before. I remember a meeting with
> the live team at a previous debconf (Argentina?) where one of my
> previous rootfs build tools [multistrap] was being considered for a
> role within live but we didn't find a good match.
>
> > You say "I'm aware that I'm going to be upsetting people, but this has
> > been a long time coming"
> >
> > Yes you are absolutely right, you are upsetting people, people like me
> > who have contributed to debian for years and spent hours of effort to
> > make things better.
>
> Sorry, but I'm assuming you don't mean that Iain, Steve or I haven't
> spent years contributing and uploading to Debian and years and years of
> effort to make Debian better.
>
>
I do not think that is the intent of Chals statement, I believe he is
referencing the caring that he and many others have given the project and
namespace that appears to be being hijacked and at the least invaded.


> > "A long time coming"? Excuse me, but the first thing I've ever heard
> > in all these years is that you and I mean you (not the debian cd team,
> > who supposedly is responsible for this upheaval)
>
> It is the team. Steve has been asking me for this support in
> vmdebootstrap for months and months. Every time there is a release or a
> point release, I get more nagging because he has to struggle with
> fixing live-*.
>
>
I asked this in another response and not to be confused but, does the
debian-cd team speak for all of Debian and its users?


> > shows up from out of
> > the blue claiming that you have the right to do as you please and
> > decide about the future of the debian live team.
>
> Iain is not on his own. This comes from the debian-cd team. Steve has
> been nagging me for vmdebootstrap support to replace live-build since
> about a week after vmdebootstrap arrived in Debian, certainly before
> the Jessie release.
>
>
Seems to be a project idea really centered around vmdebootstrap and maybe a
good basename for a project namesapce.


> > This is, from my point of view, an act of dictatorship and with my
> > authority as a debian user and contributor for years I demand you step
> > down from your position and ask for forgiveness to the debian live
> > team for being so rude, impolite and not worthy of any more of my
> > priceless words and time.
>
> Not going to happen. Just what "authority" is a user meant to have?
>

Hmm, strong words, but all I can say is no users no community.


> Those who do the work in Debian earn the right to make the decisions on
> how that work is done in Debian.
>
>
I understand your statement, but, if those who make the decisions choose
not to consider feedback and/or fail to listen to the community, well this
travels down the road to the definition of dictatorship.


> --
>
>
> Neil Williams
> =
> http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
>
>

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Bug#804315: Namespace issues

[Michael .]

>No, in the Debian project, no team has exclusive rights over package
>namespaces - filename conflicts are different. Namespacing should be
>consistent with the purpose of the package to avoid confusion.
>live-build-ng is the next generation of build tool for live images. The
>name is appropriate.

Based on the so called fact, that has yet to be proven, that Debian Live is
not an official Debian project you do not have the right to take a name and
use it. Namespace is an identifier, if you use a namespace already in use
and claim it as your own you are adding to confusion.

>He just did. Iain speaks as part of the debian-cd team. The debian-cd
>team deprecated live-build and have been looking for a replacement since
>before the Jessie release. I made a set of changes which underpin that
>support at DebConf15. Iain developed the code based upon that to
>deliver the missing support which is required by the debian-cd team.
>Job done. Well done, Iain.

I'm sorry I don't see a link to any list or meeting minutes that even
remotely indicate this is an official Debian directive. All I see is a
couple of people who have been rude, uncompromising, post something they
cannot or will not show evidence for when asked. Good job Iain and Neil,
how to win friends and influence people, job well done.

>Correct.

So you admit to being intractable!

>What has happened here is that the debian-cd team have finally found a
>solution to the provision of necessary support which has been lacking
>from the debian-live project for an inordinate amount of time.

Yet the Debian CD webpage points directly to Debian Live iso images as
official images even though you or Iain have said they are not official.
You haven't found a solution, you haven't even got a Live iso image listed
on the official Debian cd site. If the Debian CD team truly believe that
things have been lacking in Debian Live "for an inordinate amount of time"
one would think the people involved in the Debian CD team would have
communicated with the Debian Live team and collaboratively worked with them
to fix the issues. This brings me back to a previous point, if their has
been communication between Debian and Debian Live about any of this where
is it? If it is not available for public viewing, as is all other Debian
correspondence and decision making as far as I am aware the only conclusion
that can reasonably be made is that a small number of people have
deliberately taken it upon themselves to hijack Debian Live without the
Debian Live team even knowing it is happening. All I have asked for is
proof, it is very telling that you have been unable to show it. Is this
because it doesn't exist?

This is just another problem that is making me consider Devuan as a viable
alternative to Debian. Debian's decision making processes used to be open
and public, this most certainly appears to be behind closed doors.

On 9 November 2015 at 20:17, Neil Williams  wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:18:32 +1100
> "Michael ."  wrote:
>
> > >There is no namespace issue, we are building on the existing
> > >live-config
> > and
> > >live-boot packages that are maintained and bringing these into
> > >Debian as native projects. If necessary, these will be forks, but
> > >I'm hoping that won't have to happen and that we can integrate these
> > >packages into Debian and continue development in a collaborative
> > >manner.
> >
> > Actually there is and I think any person who works in a legal capacity
> > would verify that.
>
> No, in the Debian project, no team has exclusive rights over package
> namespaces - filename conflicts are different. Namespacing should be
> consistent with the purpose of the package to avoid confusion.
> live-build-ng is the next generation of build tool for live images. The
> name is appropriate.
>
> > With regards to collaboration, considering this is the first many
> > people have heard of this it seems to me you have not gone out of
> > your way to integrate people who have been working on these packages
> > into your project. As I said in my previous response to the Debian
> > Live list (which btw last time someone used the word Debian in a
> > unofficial capacity (Debian-Mulitmedia) they were asked to stop I
> > haven't seen any requests like this to the Debian Live mailing list
> > as yet) it would have been good if "instead of starting a new project
> > the group from the new project would be much better off assisting
> > with an already well established project
> >
> > >live-build has been deprecated by debian-cd, and live-build-ng is
> > >replacing it. In a purely Debian context at least, live-build is
> > deprecated.
> > >live-build-ng is being developed in collaboration with debian-cd and
> > >D-I.
> >
> > Just out of interests sake can you provide proof of this?
>
> He just did. Iain speaks as part of the debian-cd team. The debian-cd
> team deprecated live-build and have been looking for a replacement since
> before