Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Namespace issues

[Jonathan Dowland]

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:13:54AM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> May I suggest debian-cd-live or debian-live-cd as a name? That would
> be close in name to debian-cd, highlighting its use case.

I would advise against these suggestions, because using debian in the name of a
loosely-coupled sub-project (and due to the nature of Debian, all sub-projects
are loosely-coupled) is it implies a sense of "officialness" above and beyond
other software that might co-exist, either now or in the future. (Consider
if/when we decide that debhelper, d-i and various other things need to be
replaced in the future, we will face a similar problem). For that reason, I
think it would be good to avoid using the project name in software names. As
such:

> Or vmdebootstrap-live if you want to focus on vmdebootstrap name-wise (you
> being maintainer here).

Would be fine. (although vmdebootstrap is an accretion on top of debootstrap
in the first place and I'd rather that wasn't the case either, mutter mutter
cognitive burden of Debian tooling proliferation mutter mutter)

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:13:54AM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Well, people seem to be happy to "invade" other namespaces, just look
> at how much packages start with "apt-" ;) [which confuses users, because
> they think the APT team is the right team to talk to].

Yes, the *apt* "namespace" is a good example of why *not* to do this. (See
also git-buildpackage, which managed to invade two namespaces at the same
time - although since fixed it seems)

> But we don't have the replacement problem, there is no apt-ng package
> or similar.

...yet :)

It seems Iain has opted for live-wrapper now, which IMHO does not have the
problems of live-build-ng. Clashing with "live-build" is considered rude,
but OTOH "live*" is too-wide a namespace for live-build to claim to itself.


-- 
Jonathan Dowland

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Namespace issues

[Richard Nelson]

Greetings,

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, 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.
>
>
In my opinion there is a namespace issue.


> 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 because it has been deprecated by the debian-cd team, does that imply
it is deprecated by all Debian users? Again the simple solution to select a
new namespace does not seem that complicated.



> 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.
>
> Consider this thread marked as wontfix.
>
>
Hmm that saddens me.


> Thanks,
> Iain.
>
> --
>
>

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Namespace issues

[chals]

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.
>

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.

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.

"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)  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.

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.

Sorry for being so rude and impolite but you can only fight fire with fire.

> Consider this thread marked as wontfix.
>

Consider the same from my point of view.



-- 
chals
www.chalsattack.com
ch...@chalsattack.com

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Namespace issues

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 14120 March 1977, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> 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.

It is worth noting that you do not declare such things. Such an attitude
is just plain wrong. It is as official a package in Debian as any other,
and we have been respectful with namespaces on replacing them. At a
minimum people got approached before.

> 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.

As an ftpmaster I can tell you that you will have to spend more time on
bikeshedding over the name. live-build-ng wont fly.

> 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.

You would have spent WAY less time on this if you wouldn't have started
out entirely negative here.

-- 
bye, Joerg
Siliziumdioxid wird auf offenen LKWs durch Deutschland gefahren!
Der Sauerstoffgehalt der Atmosphaere ist auf 21% gesunken!

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Namespace issues

[Julian Andres Klode]

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:23:10PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 14120 March 1977, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> It is worth noting that you do not declare such things. Such an attitude
> is just plain wrong. It is as official a package in Debian as any other,
> and we have been respectful with namespaces on replacing them. At a
> minimum people got approached before.

Well, people seem to be happy to "invade" other namespaces, just look
at how much packages start with "apt-" ;) [which confuses users, because
they think the APT team is the right team to talk to].

But we don't have the replacement problem, there is no apt-ng package
or similar.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> As an ftpmaster I can tell you that you will have to spend more time on
> bikeshedding over the name. live-build-ng wont fly.

May I suggest debian-cd-live or debian-live-cd as a name? That would
be close in name to debian-cd, highlighting its use case. Or 
vmdebootstrap-live if you want to focus on vmdebootstrap name-wise (you
being maintainer here).

-- 
Julian Andres Klode  - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member

See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.

Be friendly, do not top-post, and follow RFC 1855 "Netiquette".
- If you don't I might ignore you.

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Namespace issues

[chals]

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Daniel Baumann
 wrote:
>
> but given the situation, i understand that argueing about this hijack is
> futile then.
>
> it would have been more honest to actually talk to us (we're doing this
> since almost 10 years now), and take over live-* packages directly,
> rathern than to uploading -ng versions of them.
>
> So long and thanks for all the fish,
> Daniel
>

I agree with Daniel, it is not worth arguing with dictators. So I won't.

I would only like to say that I have been actively contributing to the
debian live project since January, 2011 pushing hundreds, if not
thousands, of commits.

And I, hereby,  publicly declare that I refuse to contribute anymore
with all this people who are trying to take over everything we've been
working for and take advantage of our efforts.

Down with dictators!!!

Daniel and all the other people contributing to the debian live
project have all my support and commitment for whatever action you
want to take.  But as Daniel seemed to imply there is no use fighting
a lost battle.

dixit



-- 
chals
www.chalsattack.com
ch...@chalsattack.com

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Namespace issues

[Jeff C]

To further cloud the issue, the Debian website still links to the Debian
Live project's website as the source of their live images.

Is there more than this one rude individual saying the Debian Live project
is being replaced?

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:59 AM, 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.
> >
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> "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)  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.
>
> 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.
>
> Sorry for being so rude and impolite but you can only fight fire with fire.
>
> > Consider this thread marked as wontfix.
> >
>
> Consider the same from my point of view.
>
>
>
> --
> chals
> www.chalsattack.com
> ch...@chalsattack.com
>
>

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Namespace issues

[Michael .]

For what its worth I tried to do a clean Jessie-Live install last week and
it didn't install because my PC is UEFI. I then downloaded a regular Debian
Jessie DVD  (and even a Wheezy CD) and they both installed on my UEFI
system without any problems. If there are Jessie Live DVDs that will
install onto UEFI (not hybrid UEFI/Legacy) systems it would be very helpful
if there was some up to date documentation on it.

With regards to the other matter that this topic was initiated about I,
personally, feel instead of starting a new project the group from the new
project would be much better off assisting with an already well established
project.

On 9 November 2015 at 00:11, Fathi Boudra  wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Neil Williams  wrote:
> > On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 10:40:36 +0100
> > Daniel Baumann  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Ian,
> >>
> >> nice to see you're interested in live-* stuff. however, please
> >> consider renaming this package (and also src:live-support), it
> >> invades/hijacks the Debian Live namespace.
> >
> > There is an explicit reason for this. vmdebootstrap is being extended
> > explicitly to provide support for a replacement for live-build.
>
> It's also hostile to an existing project and give the impression that
> live-build is obsolete/deprecated/unmaintained.
>
> > This work is happening within the debian-cd team to be able to solve the
> > existing problems with live-build. These problems include reliability
> > issues, lack of multiple architecture support and lack of UEFI support.
> > vmdebootstrap has all of these, we do use support from live-boot and
> > live-config as these are out of the scope for vmdebootstrap.
>
> Which reliability issues precisely and where have they been discussed
> publicly or even reported?
> Lack of multiple architecture support? I'm using it successfully and
> reliably on i386/amd64/armhf/arm64 architectures.
> Can you expand on the missing UEFI support or provide some pointer on
> what vmdebootstrap does? There's live-build users using UEFI with
> live-build.
>
> > It is also helpful that live-build-ng is written in python.
>
> fwiw, live-* 5.x is re-written in python.
>
> >> I'm sure you can come up with a suitable namespace on your own, e.g.
> >> vmdebootstrap-live and vmdebootstrap-live-support or something like
> >> that).
> >
> > The objective is that debian-cd builds official Debian Live images
> > without using live-build, using vmdebootstrap live support and
> > live-build-ng instead.
> >
> > This work began at Debconf15 and has been extended in the vmdebootstrap
> > sprint at the miniDebConfUK. Iain demonstrated a working Live image
> > with UEFI built using vmdebootstrap and the work is set to continue.
>
>

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Namespace issues

[Michael .]

>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.

This is a pretty big accusation. Considering Debian has Live images
available through its download page (https://www.debian.org/CD/) one can
only assume that Debian Live is an official part of the Debian project.

>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.
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?

>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.

Methinks you should have spent time communicating with the people who have
spent years doing this already.

>Consider this thread marked as wontfix.

>Thanks,
>Iain.

You seem to be very intractable. No discussion, no change of heart, 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.

Cheers.
Michael.

On 9 November 2015 at 10:45, 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.
>
> Consider this thread marked as wontfix.
>
> Thanks,
> Iain.
>
> --
>

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Namespace issues

[Iain R. Learmonth]

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.

Consider this thread marked as wontfix.

Thanks,
Iain.

-- 

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Namespace issues

[Andy Smith]

Hello,

Speaking as a fairly happy user of live-build, but not a contributor
to it. I also don't know anything about live-build-ng yet so it is
perhaps worth mentioning that while I always got the live-build
support I needed, I did always feel that Daniel was perhaps a bit
too brusque with people. Point being, I'm not some Daniel fanboy
that just popped up out of nowhere. :)

However…

On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 11:45:50PM +, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> 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.

Can I ask why this matters? I have never before seen Debian take it
lightly when a new project/package invades an existing package's
namespace. I don't understand why it matters that live-build isn't a
Debian project and live-build-ng is.

I would have thought that a Debian project would be /more/ careful
about following existing Debian customs regarding namespace. Isn't
the existing custom to advise new packages to pick different names?

> 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.

It seems to me like if there is an issue with live-build claiming to
be some sort of official Debian project when it isn't, that could be
solved by asking it to not claim that. Not making your own that
deliberately takes over its name and goes out of its way to call it
deprecated.

As someone who is unaware of any previous hostilities and is just a
user of live-build, what this thread tells me is that it isn't
enough for people in Debian to come up with their own live project,
they have to explicitly attack the current live-build.

> live-build-ng is being developed in collaboration with debian-cd and D-I.

Don't you think it is quite offensive to call something foo-ng when
foo is clearly still alive?

> 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.

It seems to me like it would be really quite trivial for you to pick
a different name, so it need not take away any real time from your
other activities.

Speaking from the point of view of someone who currently uses
live-build, I am no less likely to research live-build-ng just
because it would have a different name.

So…

> Consider this thread marked as wontfix.

…I don't really understand why things have to be so hostile, or why
this escalation of hostility was necessary. :(

Cheers,
Andy

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Namespace issues

[Fathi Boudra]

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Neil Williams  wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 10:40:36 +0100
> Daniel Baumann  wrote:
>
>> Hi Ian,
>>
>> nice to see you're interested in live-* stuff. however, please
>> consider renaming this package (and also src:live-support), it
>> invades/hijacks the Debian Live namespace.
>
> There is an explicit reason for this. vmdebootstrap is being extended
> explicitly to provide support for a replacement for live-build.

It's also hostile to an existing project and give the impression that
live-build is obsolete/deprecated/unmaintained.

> This work is happening within the debian-cd team to be able to solve the
> existing problems with live-build. These problems include reliability
> issues, lack of multiple architecture support and lack of UEFI support.
> vmdebootstrap has all of these, we do use support from live-boot and
> live-config as these are out of the scope for vmdebootstrap.

Which reliability issues precisely and where have they been discussed
publicly or even reported?
Lack of multiple architecture support? I'm using it successfully and
reliably on i386/amd64/armhf/arm64 architectures.
Can you expand on the missing UEFI support or provide some pointer on
what vmdebootstrap does? There's live-build users using UEFI with
live-build.

> It is also helpful that live-build-ng is written in python.

fwiw, live-* 5.x is re-written in python.

>> I'm sure you can come up with a suitable namespace on your own, e.g.
>> vmdebootstrap-live and vmdebootstrap-live-support or something like
>> that).
>
> The objective is that debian-cd builds official Debian Live images
> without using live-build, using vmdebootstrap live support and
> live-build-ng instead.
>
> This work began at Debconf15 and has been extended in the vmdebootstrap
> sprint at the miniDebConfUK. Iain demonstrated a working Live image
> with UEFI built using vmdebootstrap and the work is set to continue.

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Namespace issues

[Daniel Baumann]

On 11/07/2015 12:33 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
> There is an explicit reason for this. vmdebootstrap is being extended
> explicitly to provide support for a replacement for live-build. This
> work is happening within the debian-cd team to be able to solve the
> existing problems with live-build.

looks like a secret plan to me. I and nobody to my knowledge of
debian-live has heard anything about that at all, nor has there been any
information about this intention being posted to
debian-l...@lists.debian.org.

also nobody of the vmdebootstrap involved people has mentioned this to
me or the audience on this years debconf in the various talks and bofhs
where image building was the topic and i was present.

> The objective is that debian-cd builds official Debian Live images
> without using live-build, using vmdebootstrap live support and
> live-build-ng instead.

oh, ok. I see.

when we agreed that the official live-images are built on petterson, we
did exactly that - we delegated only the "execution" of our build system
over to debian-cd, not the "authority" to decide which/how images are
built or built with.

but given the situation, i understand that argueing about this hijack is
futile then.

it would have been more honest to actually talk to us (we're doing this
since almost 10 years now), and take over live-* packages directly,
rathern than to uploading -ng versions of them.

So long and thanks for all the fish,
Daniel

Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Namespace issues

[Neil Williams]

On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 10:40:36 +0100
Daniel Baumann  wrote:

> Hi Ian,
> 
> nice to see you're interested in live-* stuff. however, please
> consider renaming this package (and also src:live-support), it
> invades/hijacks the Debian Live namespace.

There is an explicit reason for this. vmdebootstrap is being extended
explicitly to provide support for a replacement for live-build. This
work is happening within the debian-cd team to be able to solve the
existing problems with live-build. These problems include reliability
issues, lack of multiple architecture support and lack of UEFI support.
vmdebootstrap has all of these, we do use support from live-boot and
live-config as these are out of the scope for vmdebootstrap.

It is also helpful that live-build-ng is written in python.

> I'm sure you can come up with a suitable namespace on your own, e.g.
> vmdebootstrap-live and vmdebootstrap-live-support or something like
> that).

The objective is that debian-cd builds official Debian Live images
without using live-build, using vmdebootstrap live support and
live-build-ng instead.

This work began at Debconf15 and has been extended in the vmdebootstrap
sprint at the miniDebConfUK. Iain demonstrated a working Live image
with UEFI built using vmdebootstrap and the work is set to continue.

-- 


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



pgp8JvjqSfLII.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature