{"action":"closed","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/owncloud/pi-image/issues/14","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/owncloud/pi-image","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/owncloud/pi-image/issues/14/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/owncloud/pi-image/issues/14/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/owncloud/pi-image/issues/14/events","html_url":"https://github.com/owncloud/pi-image/issues/14","id":126844846,"number":14,"title":"Debian","user":{"login":"oparoz","id":323220,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/323220?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/oparoz","html_url":"https://github.com/oparoz","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oparoz/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oparoz/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oparoz/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oparoz/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oparoz/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oparoz/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oparoz/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oparoz/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oparoz/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/owncloud/pi-image/labels/base%20os","name":"base os","color":"66ff33"}],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":2,"created_at":"2016-01-15T10:18:07Z","updated_at":"2016-03-14T19:40:26Z","closed_at":"2016-03-14T19:40:26Z","body":"## Pros:\r\n\r\n * It's got a proper upstream community behind it, not just the one maintainer or two or a small team. This could be somewhat important for 3rd parties who want to build a product.\r\n * Proper infrastructure tools exist for hosting a repository, signing packages/code etc. etc. Tools like reprepro don't just handle \"serving packages to clients\", they also handle things like importing from upstream repositories, handling lots of packages efficiently and so on. The tools are mature and fairly well understood and documented. This could be somewhat important if you want 3rd parties to build a product on top of whatever we do: the 3rd party must have a fair chance maintaining said infrastructure on their own.\r\n * Related there are also 'bootstrapping' tools to generate Debian rootfs hierarchies from scratch or to perform automated installations. \r\n * Debian has 'form' on numerous architectures. See also: Raspbian.\r\n * Users would be able to take advantage of all the community love and effort poured into Raspbian as it is almost 1:1 transferable to Debian.\r\n * Debian admin tools and Debian style package management. This makes it feasible for a motivated user to actually admin the box on their own. \r\n * Related, Debian does a lot of the hard work on all sorts of process and engineering features like 'reproducible builds' for example.\r\n * Without having to set up any complicated build tool chains.\r\n * (These tools are also fully free software.)\r\n * Combined with the community's strong focus on software freedom, this means you are able to do things like download your OS updates over TOR from a TOR hidden service.\r\n * Existing efforts to do conceptually closely aligned or very similar things with Debian exist: e.g. freedombox.\r\n\r\n## Cons:\r\n * Default Debian packages of owncloud are ... old. Counter: but owncloud already provides custom Debian packages which we could rebuild for armhf (if not available for armhf) and use instead.\r\n * Compared to something like buildroot/dd-wrt/yocto: rootfs will probably be bigger in size. Counter 'advantage'. that also means it is a lot easier to work with and in the case of some of those: easier on your long term sanity prospects as well.\r\n * Compared to something like snappy or os-tree: updates are not fully atomic and it's probably not quite as easy to admin/use. Counter: snappy et. al. achieve this by making some other trade-offs, notably what the sysadmin (i.e user) actually can do on the system/disk. Also: it is developed in the context of Ubuntu which means Canonical which implies legal shenanigans or at least uncertainty if you want to take it to market as a commercial product.\r\n * Compared to OpenSUSE: ???\r\n \r\n### Backers\r\n* @cmacq2"}}