On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:43:08AM -0400, Donald Robertson wrote: > On 06/25/2018 04:23 AM, Jean Louis wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:10:32AM +0200, Benoît wrote: > >> I am sending this email to check if any of you have some remaining comments > >> on Hyperbola review before going forward. > >> > >> All the points have been covered and no comments have been made apart > >> during > >> the beginning of the evaluation. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> -- > >> belette > > > > Hyperbola is on the way to become fully free > > distribution, and you should carefully verify > > https://issues.hyperbola.info/ as one can track > > what is being done there. > > > > They've apparently tagged each instance of the use of 'open source' by a > package as a freedom issue, so don't get thrown off by the high count of > open freedom issues. A package using the term while regrettable isn't > really a freedom issue, and isn't even an issue for endorsement. It > would probably be best just to close those issues to keep the 'freedom > issue' tag cleaner.
I am guilty. I suggested that such descriptions could be handled, and I was more like that one person handles it quickly in descriptions of PKGBUILDs, but then they suggested that for each package a ticket shall be opened. Finally, it is exact advice as given here: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html as there are words to avoid, and in the listing of packages those words appear, and such listings are public. I think those issues shall be handled one by one. But issues will always be at distribution that is being maintained. That is encouraging how you say, and I think you should send them email, and then, if that is not a problem with issues, why not finally endorse the distribution Hyperbola? At least we asked here for transparency, and I cannot see what is preventing Hyperbola to be endorsed as of right now? Please make that clear. Jean
