On Jan 19, 2018, Robert Call <[email protected]> wrote: > For example, PureOS was added to the endorsed distro list even with > several long standing issues (mainly the usage of the debain kernel > which advertises missing non-free firmware blobs). ConnochaetOS[1] was > submitted for review was denied based on the fact that they were using > the Debian deblobbing scripts vs. the linux-libre deblobbing scripts. > Is this fair?
It certainly sounds odd. But, honestly, right now I'm more concerned that updates for PureOS seem to have been published in a non-free repo. Specifically, non-free microcode for CPUs affected by Spectre. Surely we don't mean to endorse distros that do that, do we? Purism's messaging seems to attempt to distance their new nonfree repos and dists from PureOS, but... I fail to see the difference between that and what Debian does. But then, I haven't looked very closely. Am I missing something? https://puri.sm/posts/purism-patches-meltdown-and-spectre-variant-2-both-included-in-all-new-librem-laptops/ https://deb.puri.sm/pureos/dists/purism-nonfree/ https://deb.puri.sm/pureos/pool/non-free/i/intel-microcode/ Thoughts? -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer
