On 23 Jan 2019, at 21:40, Thijs Kinkhorst thijs@kinkhorst.com wrote:
On Tue, January 22, 2019 13:29, Nicky Gerritsen wrote:
The reason we do not have a recent Live Image is because we also do not have any recent Debian packages, which are used for the live image. I am not sure if it is easy to create new Debian packages, as 6.x changed our structure internally quite a bit and I expect the packaging to break.
Probably its not too hard to get the Debian packaging back into shape. And probably we should do that.
For 6.0 this is probably hard, because the debian package uses FHS and that was broken with the Symfony move. as it did a lot of relative path checks that shouldn’t be there. It should / might work better with master / upcoming 6.1
But besides that, Im not sure we should continue to maintain both the live image and the docker containers. Their usecase seems rather similar and given that our time is limited I can imagine that wed keep only one way of doing this instead of investig the effort in both systems.
What do you think?
Good question. I’m not sure how much effort the live image is. The Docker containers are as easy as running “./build 6.0.4” and doing two "docker push”-es. I’m also not sure how many people actually use the live image. It seemed that at least Matt didn’t have to much of a problem to set up the Docker containers, even he hasn’t “done a lot of Docker”, so they seem to be pretty easy to set up. If the live image is not used that much, I’m not opposed to drop it.
Nicky