Web lists-archives.com

Re: Debian built from non-Debian sources

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Scott Kitterman <debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On July 18, 2017 8:41:43 AM EDT, Alexey Salmin <alexey.salmin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Steve McIntyre <steve@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Making images often requires tweaks to the build script at/near
>>> release time. The archive continues to be a moving target until very
>>> close to that time. More than once we've fixed things or added
>>> workarounds in the image generation scripts *on release day*. I'm not
>>> going to remove the ability to do that and make working images to
>>> pander to your ideals here.
>>This is very understandable. The thing is however, exact same
>>arguments can be applied to justify e.g. usage of proprietary software
>>to produce Debian images. In both cases tools used to reproduce an
>>image are not available to the community and it doesn't make much
>>difference whether these tools are completely unavailable or just
>>incorporate some non-public patches and tweaks. This is where people
>>get worried.
> Until someone volunteers to help, I think this is just a bunch of nit picking that the people who are doing the work should actively ignore.  Personally, I think sniping about how people who are doing the work are doing it "wrong" by people who aren't is one of the most demotivating things that happens in Debian.
> Is there anyone who cares about this that is willing to help?
> Scott K

No one can volunteer to fix it until it's acknowledged this is worth
fixing. So far it's maintained that the current approach is the right
one and should not be changed "to pander to smb's ideals". This is
something I disagree with. I write that reproducibility of images is a
valuable property and if current processes don't ensure it, then it's
reasonable to improve these processes. Now, if we manage to agree on
that -- then yes, volunteers are welcome to implement the actual
change. At the moment they're clearly not.