Debian Live 项目的剧变
Debian
尽管围绕 Debian Live 项目发生了很多戏剧性事件，关于 [Debian Live 项目](https://lwn.net/Articles/666127/)结束的[公告](http://live.debian.net/)的影响力甚至小于该项目首次出现时的公告。主要开发者的离开是最显而易见的损失，而社区对他本人及其项目的态度是很令人困惑的，但是这个项目也许还是会以其它的形式继续下去。所以 Debian 仍然会有更多的工具去创造启动光盘和其他介质。尽管是用这样一种有遗憾的方式，项目创始人 Dabiel Baumann 和 Debian CD 团队以及安装检测团队之间出现的长期争论已经被「解决」了。


![](/data/attachment/album/201605/04/153452uaryxnczyazanatp.png)


在 11 月 9 日， Baumann 发表了题为「 Debian Live 项目的突然结束」的一篇公告。在那篇短文中，他一一列举出了自从这个和他有关的[项目被发起](https://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2006/08/)以来近 10 年间发生的不同的事件，这些事件可以表明他在 Debian Live 项目上的努力一直没有被重视或没有被足够重视。最具决定性的因素是因为在「包的含义」上存在冲突， R.Learmonth [申请](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=804315)了新的包名，而这侵犯了在 Debian Live 上使用的命名空间。


考虑到最主要的 Debian Live 包之一被命名为 live-build ，而 R.Learmonth 申请的新包名却是 live-build-ng ，这简直是对 live-build 的挑战。 live-build-ng 意为一种围绕 [vmdebootstrap](http://liw.fi/vmdebootstrap/)（LCTT 译注：创造真实的和虚拟机Debian的磁盘映像）工具的外部包装，这种包装是为了创造 live 介质（光盘和USB的插入），也是 Debian Live 最需要的的部分。但是当 Baumann Learmonth [要求](https://lwn.net/Articles/666173/)为他的包换一个不同的名字的时候，他得到了一个「有趣」的[回复](https://lwn.net/Articles/666176/)：



> 
> 应该注意到， live-build 不是一个 Debian 项目，它是一个声称自己是官方 Debian 项目的外部项目，这是一个需要我们解决的问题。
> 
> 
> 这不是命名空间的问题，我们要将以目前维护的 live-config 和 live-boot 包为基础，把它们加入到 Debian 的本地项目。如果迫不得已的话，这将会有很多分支，但是我希望它不要发生，这样的话我们就可以把这些包整合到 Debian 中并继续以一种协作的方式去开发。
> 
> 
> live-build 已经被 debian-cd 放弃，live-build-ng 将会取代它。至少在一个精简的 Debian 环境中，live-build 会被放弃。我们（开发团队）正在与 debian-cd 和 Debian Installer 团队合作开发 live-build-ng 。
> 
> 
> 


Debian Live 是一个「官方的」 Debian 项目（也可以是狭义的「官方」），尽管它因为思路上的不同产生过争论。除此之外， vmdebootstrap 的维护者 Neil Willians 为脱离 Debian Live 项目[提供了如下的解释](https://lwn.net/Articles/666181/):



> 
> 为了更好的支持 live-build 的代替者, vmdebootstrap 肯定会被推广。为了能够用 live-build 解决目前存在的问题，这项工作会由 debian-cd 团队来负责。这些问题包括可靠性问题，以及不能很好的支持多种机器和 UEFI 等。 vmdebootstrap 也存在着这些问题，我们用来自于对 live-boot 和 live-config 的支持情况来确定 vmdebootstrap 的功能。
> 
> 
> 


这些抱怨听起来合情合理，但是它们可能已经在目前的项目中得到了解决。然而一些秘密的项目有很明显的取代 live-build 的意图。正如 Baumann [指出](https://lwn.net/Articles/666208/)的，这些计划没有被发布到 debian-live 的邮件列表中。人们首次从 Debian Live 项目中获知这些计划正是因为这一次的ITP事件，所以它看起来像是一个「秘密计划」——有些事情在像 Debian 这样的项目中得不到很好的安排。


人们可能已经猜到了，有很多帖子都支持 Baumann [重命名](https://lwn.net/Articles/666321/) live-build-ng 的请求，但是紧接着，人们就因为他要停止继续在 Debian Live 上工作的决定而变得沮丧。然而 Learmonth 和 Williams 却坚持认为取代 live-build 很有必要。Learmonth 给 live-build-ng 换了一个争议性也许小一些的名字： live-wrapper 。他说他的目标是为 Debian Live 项目加入新的工具（并且「把 Debian Live 项目引入 Debian 里面」），但是完成这件事还需要很大的努力。



> 
> 我向已经被 ITP 问题所困扰的每个人道歉。我们已经告知大家 live-wrapper 还不足以完全替代 live-build 且开发工作仍在进行以收集反馈。尽管有了这部分的工作，我们收到的反馈缺并不是我们所需要的。
> 
> 
> 


这种对于取代 live-build 的强烈反对或许已经被预知到了。自由软件社区的沟通和交流很关键，所以，计划去替换一个项目的核心很容易引起争议——更何况是一个一直不为人所知的计划。从 Banumann 的角度来说，他当然不是完美的，他因为上传个不合适的 [syslinux 包](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699808)导致了 wheezy 的延迟发布，并且从那以后他被从 Debian 开发者暂时[降级](https://nm.debian.org/public/process/14450)为 Debian 维护者。但是这不意味着他应该受到这种对待。当然，这个项目还有其他人参与，所以不仅仅是 Baumann 受到了影响。


Ben Armstrong 是其他参与者中的一位，在这个事件中，他很圆滑地处理了一些事，并且想从这个事件中全身而退。他从一封邮件[13](https://lwn.net/Articles/666336/)开始，这个邮件是为了庆祝这个项目，以及他和他的团队在过去几年取得的成果。正如他所说， Debian Live 的[下游项目列表](http://live.debian.net/project/downstream/)是很令人振奋的。在另一封邮件中，他也[指出](https://lwn.net/Articles/666338/)了这个项目不是没有生命力的：



> 
> 如果 Debian CD 开发团队通过他们的努力开发出可行的、可靠的、经过完善测试替代品，以及一个合适的取代 live-build 的候选者，这对于 Debian 项目有利无害。如果他们继续做这件事，他们不会「用一个官方改良，但不可靠且几乎没有经过测试的待选者取代 live-build 」。到目前为止，我还没有看到他们那样做的迹象。其间， live-build 仍保留在存档中——它仍然处于良好状态，且没有一种经过改良的继任者来取代它，因此开发团队没有必要尽快删除它。
> 
> 
> 


11 月 24 号， Armstrong 也在[他的博客](https://lwn.net/Articles/666340/)上[发布](http://syn.theti.ca/2015/11/24/debian-live-after-debian-live/)了一个有关 Debian Live 的新消息。它展示了从 Baumann 退出起两周内的令人高兴的进展。甚至有迹象表明 Debian Live 项目与 live-wrapper 开发者开展了合作。博客上也有了一个[计划表](https://wiki.debian.org/DebianLive/TODO)，同时不可避免地寻求更多的帮助。这让人们有理由相信围绕项目发生的戏剧性事件仅仅是一个小摩擦——也许不可避免，但绝不是像现在看起来这么糟糕。




---


via: <https://lwn.net/Articles/665839/>


作者：Jake Edge 译者：[vim-kakali](https://github.com/vim-kakali) 校对：[PurlingNayuki](https://github.com/PurlingNayuki)


本文由 [LCTT](https://github.com/LCTT/TranslateProject) 原创翻译，[Linux中国](https://linux.cn/) 荣誉推出


OK
# Upheaval in the Debian Live project

Please consider subscribing to LWNSubscriptions are the lifeblood of LWN.net. If you appreciate this content and would like to see more of it, your subscription will help to ensure that LWN continues to thrive. Please visit

[this page]to join up and keep LWN on the net.

While the event had a certain amount of drama surrounding it, the [announcement](/Articles/666127/) of the end for the [Debian Live project](http://live.debian.net/) seems likely to have
less of an impact than it first appeared. The loss of the lead
developer will certainly be felt—and the treatment he and the project
received seems rather baffling—but the project looks like it will continue
in some form.
So Debian will still have tools to create live CDs and other media going
forward, but what appears to be a long-simmering dispute between project
founder and leader Daniel
Baumann and the Debian CD and installer teams has been "resolved", albeit
in an unfortunate fashion.

The November 9 announcement from Baumann
was titled "An abrupt End to Debian Live". In that message, he pointed to a
number of different events over the nearly ten years since the [project was founded](https://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2006/08/)
that indicated to him that his efforts on Debian Live were not being
valued, at least
by some. The final straw, it seems, was an "intent to
package" (ITP) bug [filed](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=804315)
by Iain R. Learmonth that impinged on the namespace used by Debian Live.

Given that one of the main Debian Live packages is called "live-build", the
new package's name, "live-build-ng", was fairly confrontational in and of
itself. Live-build-ng is meant to be a wrapper around the [vmdebootstrap](http://liw.fi/vmdebootstrap/) tool for creating
live media (CDs and USB sticks), which is precisely the role Debian Live
is filling.
But
when Baumann [asked](/Articles/666173/) Learmonth to choose a
different name for his package, he got an "interesting" [reply](/Articles/666176/):

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 [Debian Installer].

Whether or not Debian Live is an "official" Debian project (or even what
"official" means in this context) has been disputed in the thread. Beyond
that, though, Neil Williams (who is the maintainer of vmdebootstrap)
[provided some explanation](/Articles/666181/) for the switch
away from Debian Live:

Those seem like legitimate complaints, but ones that could have been fixed
within
the existing project. Instead, though, something of a stealth project was
evidently undertaken to replace live-build. As Baumann [pointed out](/Articles/666208/), nothing was posted to the
debian-live mailing list about the plans. The ITP was the first notice that
anyone from the Debian Live project got about the plans, so it all looks like a
"secret plan

"—something that doesn't sit well in a project
like Debian.

As might be guessed, there were multiple postings that supported
Baumann's request to rename "live-build-ng", followed by many that
expressed dismay at
his decision to stop working on Debian Live. But Learmonth and Williams
were adamant that replacing live-build is needed. Learmonth did [rename](/Articles/666321/)
live-build-ng to a perhaps less confrontational name: live-wrapper. He
noted that his aim had been to add the new tool to the Debian Live project
(and "bring the Debian Live
project into Debian

"), but things did not play out that way.

The backlash could perhaps have been foreseen. Communication is a key
aspect of free-software communities, so a plan to replace the guts of a
project seems likely to be controversial—more so if it is kept under
wraps. For his part, Baumann has certainly not been perfect—he delayed the
"wheezy" release by [uploading
an unsuitable syslinux package](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699808) and [dropped down](https://nm.debian.org/public/process/14450) from a
Debian Developer to a Debian Maintainer shortly thereafter—but that doesn't
mean he deserves this kind of treatment. There are others involved in the
project as well, of course, so it is not just Baumann who is affected.

One of those other people is Ben Armstrong, who has been something of a diplomat
during the event and has tried to smooth the waters. He started with a [post](/Articles/666336/) that celebrated the project and what
Baumann and the team had accomplished over the years. As he noted, the
[list of downstream
projects](http://live.debian.net/project/downstream/) for Debian Live is quite impressive. In another post, he also [pointed out](/Articles/666338/) that the project is not dead:

On November 24, Armstrong also [posted](/Articles/666340/) an
update (and to [his
blog](http://syn.theti.ca/2015/11/24/debian-live-after-debian-live/)) on Debian Live. It shows some good progress made in the
two weeks since Baumann's exit; there are even signs of collaboration between
the project and the live-wrapper developers.
There is also a [to-do list](https://wiki.debian.org/DebianLive/TODO), as well as the
inevitable call for more help. That gives
reason to believe that all of
the drama surrounding the project was just a glitch—avoidable, perhaps, but
not quite as dire as it
might have seemed.

Posted Dec 2, 2015 19:08 UTC (Wed)
by
Posted Dec 2, 2015 19:12 UTC (Wed)
by
Posted Dec 2, 2015 19:39 UTC (Wed)
by
The package name choice was unfortunate, but that always happens in free software. Just look how the apt namespace is invaded by third parties without any coordination with the APT team. It's not nice to have tons of other software with similar names and users being confused by it, and then asking in the wrong channels for help, because they think your team is responsible for it. That aside from the issue of building upon the reputation of the project you base your name on.
The syslinux incident and the demotion to a maintainer shows you that there were problems in the past with how Daniel was working and interacting with other members, and there are more issues that led to the creation of "live-builder-ng" and the notion that "Debian Live" is not official, but it's not up to me to comment on those.
I'm glad for all the work Daniel has done, for the packages he sponsored for me; and I am sad about the problems, but the best we can do now is to look forward instead of backward, and focus on making future Debian releases better than ever (the APT 1.1 release will make package management in the next release much better, BTW).
Posted Dec 2, 2015 19:42 UTC (Wed)
by
Posted Dec 2, 2015 19:45 UTC (Wed)
by
Posted Dec 2, 2015 22:31 UTC (Wed)
by
P.S. Just an opinion, no flame please.
Posted Dec 2, 2015 22:46 UTC (Wed)
by
There were repeatedly serious problems with live-build not working correctly when a Debian release was being made[0], thus the team that builds the Debian images wanted something more (consistently) reliable to replace it, wrote something new - based on another tool to create Debian systems, and announced it to the world.
If you had one tool that is repeatedly broken the time you need to use it, and another reliable tool that does almost everything you need, you probably would do the same thing and extend the other tool instead of trying to fix the current tool all the time.
There was never any intention to force Daniel to stop working on the live packages. In fact, the new tool uses those exact packages.
Daniel overreacted on this issue, and I do not really understand why. It's obvious that it's hard for him to work with people who do not trust him much, but that does not mean that he had to completely pull back his involvement in live system building.
[0]
Posted Dec 2, 2015 22:57 UTC (Wed)
by
> It's obvious that it's hard for him to work with people who do not trust him much, but that does not mean that he had to completely pull back his involvement
You've sort of confirmed my point, you cannot have "people who do not trust him much", uploading packages with misleading names and working behind his back as part of one and the same team, that simply doesn't work, (look at Microsoft's politics).
Maybe "There was never any intention to force Daniel to stop working on the live packages", but it certainly seems to me like there were some passive aggressive moves being made by some of the same people who seemed to be making such moves with the systemd debate - my point being this doesn't seem to be an isolated incident of such behaviour in the Debian community.
But then again, I only know what I read on LWN, so my ignorance might be showing here...
Posted Dec 2, 2015 23:37 UTC (Wed)
by
1. Daniel has always done too much work, and got overworked. He already had to reduce his work around 2007 - I was personally affected by this, but I'm sure there are sources somewhere to show that. After his initial reduction of his maintenance workload, he somewhat quickly managed to get back to an unmanageable state, though, if I recall correctly.
2. He also demonstrated lack to team skills by actively worked delayed a debian-installer release candidate (the syslinux incident) - just because his argument was technically correct does not mean that it's a good idea to just break the workflow of a core team, and he should have helped to do what is needed to help releasing things.
3. He also broke almost all systems using btrfs as / at around the same time and blamed others for the issue because it worked for him (
I think with this history, you will understand why the trust was lost and why he was "demoted" from a Debian Developer to a Debian Maintainer, that is from unrestricted upload access to any package in the archive to upload access to a set of packages people trust him to work on (any DD can give upload rights for any package to any DM).
I don't think there were any passive aggressive moves. The team responsible for building the official live images (and all other images) found live-build to unstable to use, so they wrote a new one to replace it. They named it live-build-ng, as it was the next-generation of live building tools used for official Debian releases. People do not always think about what effect their comment/name choice/etc. will have on other people, so sometimes unfortunate things happen.
The systemd debate was a much more brutal debate. Not only internally, but also with many people from the outside trying to push their own agenda (less people then apparent, because many persons were in fact the same person). It was decided in a democratic way which is the second best outcome there can be (the best being achieving consensus). In contrast, there really was no huge debate here at all. A new package was announced, Daniel did not like the name, the name was changed after some insisting, and then Daniel suddenly and unexpectedly announced the live project as dead.
Posted Dec 3, 2015 0:06 UTC (Thu)
by
Posted Dec 3, 2015 0:21 UTC (Thu)
by
If your team is responsible for building live images, it seems like a natural choice to name your next generation tool for that this way. After all, live building is their responsibility, and they replace the existing tool.
That was unfortunate, but I don't think anybody really thought much about naming here, and just chose the first thing to come to their minds.
After all, we are mostly a group of software developers, not social relations experts.
Posted Dec 3, 2015 5:48 UTC (Thu)
by
Yes, it is true, people did not trust Daniel. This is a serious issue for Debian as it depends on around 1000 people who barely know each other, mostly doing things unsupervised, yet all these unsupervised actions must push Debian in the direction of getting a working, stable Debian release out door. Trust is the lubrication that makes it work. Without it, every Debian package upload would have to be checked by another DD which would slow things down and increase the man power required. Manpower is a limited resource, so Debian simply could not be what it is today if developers did not trust each other to get the job done. Daniel broke that trust on a couple of occasions by making and not addressing changes that delayed the release. Eg:
In the end Daniel was demoted from DD. It seems to be fashionable to attribute that to personality clashes, and yes there is no doubt there were and are personality clashes. But the reality is far more mundane - Debian was ejecting someone that had become on impediment to achieving a core reason for the projects existence. He wasn't ejected completely, instead he was made a DM. A DM could be said to be a supervised DD. Notice how that fixes the trust issue, while still allowing him to be part of Debian and continued with all the personality clashes that existed before. He was even trusted continue to administer the live.debian.net domain, which he has now rewarded by shutting it down with almost no notice.
> uploading packages
A package was not uploaded. ITP means "intent to package". It is the name of the formal procedure Debian uses to advise the entire project someone would like to introduce a new package into the distribution. It is actually a "wishlist" bug report that is automatically CC'ed to the entire project. Discussion on merits of introducing the package happen on that bug.
Sending an ITP isn't enforced mechanically - despite being official policy. It's one of those trust things. A DD could in principle introduce a new package without doing a ITP. Daniel did precisely that when he was a DD, to the chagrin of some.
> working behind his back
Daniel rage quit because someone discussed the idea introducing a new package into Debian in a forum Daniel monitored. The new package was a fork of a package Daniel maintains.
> with misleading names
The name is not misleading. xxx-ng generally means a new version of package xxx maintained by someone else and taken in a new direction. That accurately describes the ITP'ed package.
> But then again, I only know what I read on LWN, so my ignorance might be showing here...
Yes, well LWN isn't unique in promoting the "tribe expels member because they don't like him" angle. It makes for a good copy I guess.
The reality is rather different, as anybody who inhabits the mailing lists knows. Debian regularly has spectacular clashes on it's mailing lists - both personal and technical. I consider people so passionate about something they push it a little too far a sign of a healthy project. Despite all the complaints about how unpleasant Debian's mailing lists are, it is rare for Debian to take punitive measures. When it does, it's usually just banning an email address.
Despite how it's being reported this isn't an example personality conflicts running roughshod over Debian's internal governance systems. I see it as more of an example of how Debian's tendency to be fair even under the most trying circumstances can be costly at times. Regardless, personally I would not have it any other way.
Posted Dec 3, 2015 8:40 UTC (Thu)
by
And as for your nice description of ITP, what really matters was what happened after the ITP was filed. And then blame Daniel for not being a team player. Yeah, right.
Posted Dec 3, 2015 9:02 UTC (Thu)
by
However, nobody is really gaining anything from the public slanging match that is now taking place. It sounds like this has already been discussed elsewhere - those who are interested will find the previous discussion in list archives somewhere. I don't think anyone is going to change anyone else's mind by posting more and more details here... :-)
Posted Dec 3, 2015 22:55 UTC (Thu)
by
The Debian-CD team forked Daniel's package, live-build and called it live-build-ng. They forked it because it wasn't well suited to what they were doing, and Daniel wasn't receptive to the changes they wanted. Forks are a biggish deal in open source, but no one is forced out by a fork - the original package continues as it was. No one was threatening to take over, shut down, or otherwise interfere with Daniel's work on live. The only change is it had some additional competition.
What happened after the ITP was filed is Daniel demanded the package name be changed, and after 58 hours of the Debian-CD team saying they weren't going to do so he quit.
Spats like this crop up within Debian from time to time. Normally they brew and fester over months and months. The bad ones are sorted by the FTP team, the really bad ones by the technical committee, and all out wars as happened over systemd require a General Resolution or two, were the whole project gets to have a say.
> this was a nicely orchestrated operation by a few people to bully him out.
If that is indeed what happened, I got to hand it to them - they did it extraordinarily well. Getting someone to quit the project after 58 hours of starting is a record that will stand for a long, long time. And using a page name as the trigger! It wasn't even a fight over who gets to use a package name, it was a package name no one else was using - unbelievable.
Posted Dec 4, 2015 14:48 UTC (Fri)
by
Posted Dec 5, 2015 13:52 UTC (Sat)
by
An ITP adds a new packages to Debian. They do not remove existing packages. So if it goes ahead both live-build and live-build-ng (now renamed to live-wrapper because of Daniels request) will be part of Debian.
I expect the people introducing it will be replacing live-build with live-wrapper in their projects, otherwise there would not be much point. The rest of us can continue to use either, although someone will have to pick up live.debian.net if live-build is to continue to remain useful.
Posted Dec 7, 2015 12:12 UTC (Mon)
by
LWN.net is one of the mainstays of information what happens in Linux communities. *YOU* might have known about that "Daniel thing". Others, especially those not involved in Debian, didn't. And for them, that information is valuable if they want to know what happens in our diverse distribution communities. For me, it was.
Posted Dec 2, 2015 22:57 UTC (Wed)
by
Posted Dec 3, 2015 13:10 UTC (Thu)
by
Alternatively, see
The git repositories are now in Alioth:
Copies of the original repositories were mirrored to
The site was built from the live.debian.net repository. As it happens, pages there seem to be just markdown, and Github renders markdown. So, for instance, the list of downstream distributions (projects using Debian Live) is at:
Posted Dec 3, 2015 0:01 UTC (Thu)
by
Posted Dec 3, 2015 22:28 UTC (Thu)
by
It doesn't apply at all in this case, but it's not hard to find correlations elsewhere between people/companies openly bashing their competition and producing bad products themselves.
Posted Dec 4, 2015 13:58 UTC (Fri)
by
I think it's reasonable to assume that the person who came up with live-build-ng expected past to be prologue, and was not actually trying to start something.
[
][
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**juliank** (subscriber, #45896)
[[Link](/Articles/666559/)] (17 responses)

[
]

We have had email from a number of readers who disagree with you. You may be current on what happened here, but a lot of other people are not.
## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**corbet** (editor, #1)
[[Link](/Articles/666565/)] (15 responses)
[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**juliank** (subscriber, #45896)
[[Link](/Articles/666566/)]




[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**Martin.Schwenke** (subscriber, #7764)
[[Link](/Articles/666573/)] (13 responses)

[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**skelbley** (guest, #105557)
[[Link](/Articles/666575/)] (12 responses)

[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**MatejLach** (guest, #84942)
[[Link](/Articles/666603/)] (11 responses)

We cannot keep loosing good developers due to social issues and high egos of others, we rally can't.


[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**juliank** (subscriber, #45896)
[[Link](/Articles/666604/)] (10 responses)





[https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=804315#65](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=804315#65)

[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**MatejLach** (guest, #84942)
[[Link](/Articles/666609/)] (9 responses)





[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**juliank** (subscriber, #45896)
[[Link](/Articles/666612/)] (2 responses)



[https://bugs.debian.org/701936](https://bugs.debian.org/701936)), while he could have easily reverted the change to prevent breaking user systems. Remember that the social contract says: "4. Our priorities are our users [...]", "We will place their interests first in our priorities." - he clearly did not do so in that case.




[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**philomelus** (guest, #96366)
[[Link](/Articles/666621/)] (1 responses)

[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**juliank** (subscriber, #45896)
[[Link](/Articles/666628/)]




[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**ras** (subscriber, #33059)
[[Link](/Articles/666620/)] (5 responses)

[https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699808;...](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699808;msg=365)













[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**petur** (guest, #73362)
[[Link](/Articles/666676/)] (4 responses)


[
]## Can we please stop the slanging match now?

**Martin.Schwenke** (subscriber, #7764)
[[Link](/Articles/666680/)]


[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**ras** (subscriber, #33059)
[[Link](/Articles/666798/)] (2 responses)






[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**plugwash** (subscriber, #29694)
[[Link](/Articles/666864/)] (1 responses)

[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**ras** (subscriber, #33059)
[[Link](/Articles/666942/)]



[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**jschrod** (subscriber, #1646)
[[Link](/Articles/667006/)]

> Daniel was painful for everyone, we don't need to be constantly reminded about it.


[
]## live.debian.net deleted?

**laarmen** (subscriber, #63948)
[[Link](/Articles/666610/)] (1 responses)

[
]## live.debian.net deleted?

**tzafrir** (subscriber, #11501)
[[Link](/Articles/666709/)]
[http://live-systems.org/](http://live-systems.org/) is likewise down.

[https://wiki.debian.org/DebianLive](https://wiki.debian.org/DebianLive) .

[https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-live/](https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-live/)

[https://github.com/debian-live/](https://github.com/debian-live/)

[https://github.com/debian-live/live.debian.net/blob/maste...](https://github.com/debian-live/live.debian.net/blob/master/project/downstream.mdwn)

[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**fandingo** (guest, #67019)
[[Link](/Articles/666617/)] (2 responses)

[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**flussence** (guest, #85566)
[[Link](/Articles/666794/)]


[
]## Upheaval in the Debian Live project

**mstone_** (subscriber, #66309)
[[Link](/Articles/666859/)]