a few months ago, i discussed some updates that should be made to the
"Free GNU/Linux distributions" page on gnu.org with donaldr on the IRC
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
he asked me to remind him via email and i since took the time to
thoroughly review the status of all of the li
jean -
what henry was saying is that it is not easy to find out which distros
get reviewed, or when, or what the results are - for example, i have
heard that liberty-bsd is being evaluated right now but i dont think
this is actually publicly stated anywhere - i was the one who added
liberty-bsd to
regarding the suggestion on the website of using another distro - the
exact wording id this:
> "If you are looking for a libre Slackware x86_64 variant you are
welcome to use the x86_64 slack-n-free repo and have a look at the
FreeSlack project."
to be clear, this is not explicitly recommending
firstly, let me say that i am pleased that this thread has gotten so
much attention - judging only by the activity on the libreplanet wiki,
the amount of interest in this distro list was not apparent
frankly, i would like to address that and to continue the discussion of
transparency generally be
not that anyone asked but jaromil may be pleased to hear that dynebolic
v1 was (i think) the 2nd distro i ever tried before i ever heard of GNU
or the FSF - liveCDs were quite "cutting-edge" then and it seemed like a
very easy way to try out this nerdy "linux" thing i had been hearing
about - i ca
On 09/16/2017 07:58 PM, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
> YouTube always distributes resampled copies of audiovisual material.
that statement alone is enough to make a purist cringe - it just goes to
show that people who use youtube do not have very much concern for
quality, neither producers nor consumer
i should add that i have heard there are some archive.org enthusiasts
working on a script to automatically fetch "CC" licensed videos from
youtube and upload them to archive.org - that to me, has the form of an
actual solution - but mostly what i see is everyone bending over
backward to preserve th
On 08/13/2017 12:07 PM, 8jqvs6+844uxnsb5w...@guerrillamail.com wrote:
> They're rejected to remove the downloader:
> https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/issues/1897
someone just showed me an interesting twist regarding this today - it
appears that the wesnooth developers have changed their websi
On 12/23/2017 01:56 PM, Caleb Herbert wrote:
> So many distros, so little resources...
>
> This fragmentation leads to free distros that are poorly maintained,
> like BLAG.
>
and duplicates such as the ubuntu-based trisquel, uruk, and ututo - and
the debian-based pureos which would be as redund
list
> trisquel-de...@listas.trisquel.info
> https://listas.trisquel.info/mailman/listinfo/trisquel-devel
>
---
On 12/26/2017 01:43 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> i will add again what i said at that meeting - i think it is safe to
&g
On 12/26/2017 08:52 PM, Luke Shumaker wrote:
>
> .DS_Store is a macOS thing, not a Windows thing, isn't it?
>
yea probably - i was thinking of the thumbnail cache files windows adds
into in each folder that is browsed with the file manager - they are
named thumbs.db or something like that
si
regarding my suggestion to change the labels in the GUI to not mention
the brand names of the programs that created them - i should have
qualified that with: "if the FSDG requires any changes to this program"
- but i am not convinced that any changes are required
the only reason i suggest that may
where is this ticket that you reference? gnu.org #1262331 - it is not on
the CC list - is that a on public tracker?
On 01/17/2018 11:45 AM, Therese Godefroy via RT wrote:
> Should a distro that hasn't been maintained for several years be
listed in free-distros.html, especially if it is based on a
On 01/17/2018 04:32 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> That's already a thing: One of the criteria in the GNU FSDG is that "to
> be listed, a distribution should be actively maintained."
i would strongly suggest that guideline be changed to require the distro
only to be available and functional and to remove
On 01/17/2018 05:30 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> It's a ticketing system used to handle certain email addresses like
> webmast...@gnu.org (and more), which seems to be where the person
> originally wrote to.
>
then the obvious question would be if the OP will see these replies if
they are not subscr
On 01/17/2018 06:42 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> They wouldn't. I imagine that the webmasters will handle the replying of
> email that's sent to them? Maybe this was sent as food for thought or
> something?
>
hm - i would have expected fewer question marks in that response
considering the number o
On 01/19/2018 03:19 AM, alimira...@riseup.net wrote:
> hi
> What about add uruk gnu/linux to gnu free list
> I asck this Questions again
> Let's finish this long long story
>
the FSDG says to request evaluation by sending an email to
with a description of the system and a link to the
distro web
On 01/19/2018 02:51 PM, Robert Call wrote:
> could the FSF maybe start a page
> on https://libreplanet.org that would show : the distros that have
> asked the FSF to be reviewed, which ones have started the public review
there is such a page:
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Incoming_distros
AFAIK
Alexandre -
thanks for that detailed explanation - i have been curious about this
myself - i must say though that it did not address what is the actual
behavior preventing the debian kernel from being acceptable, which as i
understand is not related to its ability to load any modules but simply
th
my first though this morning was to claim a highly coveted GNU-Buck by
reporting the purio.sm non-free repos as this does appear to be exactly
the same thing that makes debian nonFSDG; but after some thought, i
realizedthere is a distinction in that debian exists solely for the
purpose of producing
On 01/20/2018 12:34 AM, Jean Louis wrote:
>
> The question is does the update of the Intel
> Management Engine constitute part of the operating
> system or not?
the FSDG does not make any distinction as to whether or not non-free
software in question is part of the OS - the issue is whether or n
On 01/20/2018 01:54 PM, Caleb Herbert wrote:
>
>> So in some ways maybe it could be seen as similar to RPM Fusion?
>
> That's what I think, and it makes sense that the RPM Fusion method was
> accepted, because the FSDG derives from Fedora guidelines.
to be clear, the "RPM Fusion method" is acc
On 01/21/2018 02:08 PM, Therese Godefroy via RT wrote:
> Now that the issue has been thoroughly discussed, could anyone on the
> gnu-linux-libre write blurbs for the problematic distros
im not convinced that there are any problematic distros other than blag
- and even that one has been disputed
On 01/21/2018 02:22 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> I think we should wait for someone from the Licensing and Compliance
> Lab, or the FSF at large, to reply before making any changes to that page.
indeed - i meant only to show that even the clearly incorrect parts take
a long time to be changed - in cont
'www.' is indeed just a convention but it is not a "traditional" thing
of the past that should go away - it's meaning is still as well defined
and useful today as it ever was - sub-domains are very plainly a way to
distinguish one machine or service from the various other services that
may be offer
On 01/25/2018 01:28 PM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:
> To clarify, I agree with you and Luke down below that www subdomain is nice
> and useful. It's only the tacit assumption that www.whatever.com =
> whatever.com that I find annoying :)
>
you quoted me but i also suggested that it is inappropriate t
ok - so to steer us back on topic i can say that i tried to build blag
last week using the scripts posted a few months ago on the trisquel
forum - as to be expected, there were issues
the scripts are based on a fedora v20 target system and require packages
from corresponding versioned repos on fe
after some more prodding i was able to get the BLAG scripts to build
ISOs based on fedora and free-dora v27 for each of the openbox and LXDE
configurations for both i386 and x86_64 - the build does succeed without
the 'kernel-libre-firmware' package - the configs had, for some reason,
a glob *-fir
i dont think speed or efficiency was ever a problem or even an objective
- regardless of who was "active" or "pro-active" whatever that means :)
the key thing that was elucidated in this announcement is that there was
little transparency - regardless of what was happening or not happening,
either o
i like this announcement very much :)
i really must say "Thanks to Bob" as well - but then i really must point
out that i also tried to make the FSF aware of that same
"Incoming_distros" page[1] and "FreedSoftware" libreplanet group[2]
about six months ago - when i raised the very same issues that
On 02/28/2018 12:08 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
> It would be good to have your own
> workflow. Steps, one by one on what is to be
> done.
>
> Not just a checklist for free system
> distributions, but rather a checklist for the
> whole process.
the only thing that the announcement does mention regardi
just to point out that there is the
'Free_System_Distribution_Checklist'[1] on the libreplanet wiki; though
it could be more complete and rigorous so that all criteria are not as
subject to interpretation as some are written now
[1]:
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2017-08/
some of these criteria will no doubt require clarification - for
instance: "1.10 - Other Information for practical use" if not
"software" and "documentation" - software and documentation are already
covered in sections 1.8 and 1.9 and the FSF does not consider data (raw
information) or art to be "p
thanks - that was a good explanation - the FSDG really only speaks of
"software, documentation, fonts, and other data" as being functional and
"artistic works and statements of opinion" as non-functional - it is
non-intuitive see any "data" as being functional - even source code is
just data until
ok ive translated the revised checklist into a proper wiki template[1]
that has the look and behavior of a checklist - and the criteria entries
themselves are links to the relevant DSFG sections so the previous
lookup table is not needed
this will make creating new distro pages and maintaining the
i just re-worded the work-flow related headings on the "incoming
distros" wiki page to avoid confusion - most notably the former heading:
"Distros ready to be evaluated by the FSF licensing team" which had four
distros listed beneath - that was changed to: "Distros that have
requested consideration
krt send this to me personally - i will repost
On 03/21/2018 03:22 PM, KRT Listmaster wrote:
> On 03/21/2018 12:54 PM, bill-auger wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> info - it is not clear though if freeslack or libertybsd have explicitly
>> expressed interest - without combing over
On 03/21/2018 11:42 PM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:
> This is consistent with the existing policy of
> not continually evaluating the distro after it's been accepted.
i dont think that is a formal policy - one of the strict criteria is to
be "actively maintained" - i would like to think that it is only
On 03/22/2018 03:30 PM, Donald Robertson wrote:
> But we don't have to assume that
> is needed just because a lot of time has passed.
>
i think that is a valid concern though - to allow for some "on-hold"
phase and for when it becomes clear that the distro maintainers are
expressing no interest o
On 03/22/2018 04:08 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> This could be considered as an some reasonably brief amount of time
oops - i hit 'cut' - that sentence was intended as:
This could be considered as an "on-hold" phase for some reasonably
brief amount of time
signature.a
On 03/22/2018 05:25 PM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:
> I agree: if a distro can't fix a freedom bug for an extended period of time,
> we should assume utter incompetence or bad faith, and there should be a path
> to revoke/reset the certification.
sure for those blatant reasons - but generally just to
On 03/23/2018 11:26 AM, KRT Listmaster wrote:
> That's a good point, thanks for pointing it out, it might indeed be
> worth removing. Questions: should this criterion be applied across the
> board? How does this differ from say, the PureOS website having a
> link to the Purism website in the foo
as i understand, the final issue preventing free-slack from being
endorsed is the word "slack" in their name - which is in conflict with
the "no name confusion" criteria
so one other thing to point out for the sake of equality is that the
connochaetos website refers to the repos it hosts as "The s
On 03/23/2018 03:23 PM, KRT Listmaster wrote:
> GNU would fail this same criterion if proposed today. Just a thought.
great point - i think it gets right to the core of that somewhat vague
criteria - although indefinite, the intention is clearly to avoid
confusion - there is no reasonable confus
i have been assuming that the FSDG is intended to be ongoing
requirements and not only a guide for initial consideration; and that
the post-review adfeno and i did last summer may have been the first,
not because it was unwelcome, but only because no one had yet taken the
initiative to do it
that
On 03/24/2018 08:47 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> I don't understand the desire to boot distros off over how
> "maintained" they are.
before i read the rest of this - my desire is not to kick any off - i
only am trying to clarify the grey areas
"actively maintained" is one of the criteria - so what do
geez, these reactions like: "condemnation" and "punishment" - im really
only addressing the most extreme (stick a fork in it) cases here - i did
not realize any were ever demoted for any reason for any period of time
in the past - that is really all i hoped to establish as a baseline for
On 03/24
On 03/24/2018 09:20 PM, Robert Call wrote:
> I don't think kicking distros off the list is a good approach (unless
> they show they are not willing to fix real freedom issues). As for
> kicking distros that don't release frequently, a better approach might
> be to get them the help they need instea
On 03/24/2018 08:47 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> Please feel free to start a review of Ututo or
> any other one.
ok - that is precisely the intention of this thread to determine if such
a review were done and if there were blatent problems then would
anything actually be done about that situation
im g
i really can not speak to any experiences you may have had on this list
in the past - i have only been active on this list for about one year
and i have not seen anything particularly negative about pureos in that time
personally, i have insufficient facts to form an opinion of either
pureos or pu
On 03/25/2018 11:28 AM, Robert Call wrote:
> While I don't agree with Bill's stance
the only sentiments i expressed that qualify as a "stance" are that
everyone should held to the same standards and that each distro should
elect a delegate to participate in these discussions - i should hope
those w
On 03/25/2018 01:26 PM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> we already passed the distro
> review, you can either help us get better
> or try to fix review process if you
> feel unhappy about it.
the assumption here seems to be that distros have no further obligation
after the initial review process, other th
On 03/25/2018 02:54 PM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> For chromium - I am not in favor for it and as stated I request complete
> removal. The thing is - we must find more productive ways of this
> because simply removing things means also we remove productivity for
> many people (yes we have fork of Fire
On 03/25/2018 04:22 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> But I don't think that the FSDG requires distros to remove a program
> over allegations of freedom problems.
no, but the FSDG does specify "No software from the List of software
that does not respect the FSDG" - so until the day chromium is removed
from
On 03/25/2018 11:35 PM, Robert Call wrote:
> That is not part of the FSDG!
it is one of the checklist items that donald put on the newly codified
criteria last week[1] - you are correct though, that it is not specified
on the guidelines web page[2] - maybe it will be added soon - i dunno
of cour
On 03/25/2018 11:47 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> Right. And a lot of entries in there have "use version X or later"
chromium is however not one of those items - and i quote:
Recommended Fix:
Remove program/package
Use GNU IceCat, or equivalent
surely that list needs some attention - i supp
On 03/25/2018 05:58 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> Debian kernel itself is entirely free but there was issues with messages
> that was brought to us and we worked on it both in PureOS and Debian at
> same time.
>
> https://tracker.pureos.net/T362
i am curious about this - i thought about tackling i
On 03/26/2018 06:32 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> is that someone from FSF (Donald?) CC's directly all current delegates
> from active distros on topic that reached point of need to be discussed
> and solved by distros (aka higher priority topic). That way (at least
> for me) we will not be stretche
On 03/26/2018 10:15 AM, Jason Self wrote:
> I'm not sure I'd be onboard with that idea. My understanding is that the
> Parabola folk will blacklist a package as soon as an allegation is made
that seems an accurate perception to me - in it's current state it is
not fit for the task - i would not w
Julie
this is how it was explained to me - i was a bit mixed up yesterday
myself - but henry's first message today made it clear
the main problem is not so much mentioning the name of the blob but that
the message is presented as an error - "failed to load this blob" - that
gives the impression t
On 03/26/2018 03:27 PM, Donald Robertson wrote:
> and at this point we at the FSF need to bring some guidance.
there has been a healthy flurry of activity on this list recently and i
think the will exists to forgot about any friction in the past and move
forward - but i must firmly say that "guid
On 03/26/2018 05:08 PM, Donald Robertson wrote:
> Yes, I apologize if 'guidance' wasn't clear, I meant that we're going to
> make a decision and share that with the list.
2 decisions please :)
i presume the "a decision" you referred to was the kernel issue - but i
can see the issue with 'qt5-webe
On 03/26/2018 05:35 PM, Donald Robertson wrote:
> would you mind
> updating it so that the list is not being treated as a blacklist? Thank you.
sure, i did interpret it that way myself - i had already named the data
key 'non-dsfg-software-cleansed' - on the presumption that it is not a
strict blac
On 03/26/2018 06:02 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
> There must be some reason why there are many
> topics and posts on Trisquel forum:
i would not use forum activity as any measure of the distro itself - if
anything, that is only a measure of the community - most of the
discussions on the trisquel forum
On 03/26/2018 10:42 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> A repo to point
> to consisting of free add-ons would be good. Perhaps something along
> the lines of what was done for IceCat plugins to have a list of free
> ones on the FSF's Free Software Directory would be a good thing.
>
free-domium ?
freedom-oni
On 03/26/2018 09:26 PM, Isaac David wrote:
> in my mind it's only the [case against Qt-Webengine] (at Parabola)
> that rests of pretty shaky grounds:
are you saying that you think qt5-webengine is probably acceptable as it is?
but chromium still has problems? (and probably iridium and ungoogled)
On 03/26/2018 09:26 PM, Isaac David wrote:
>
> [Ungoogled Chromium]: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
> [case against Qt-Webengine]: https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/1167
little need to post links about chromium now - this is becoming very old
news - there is a master thread on the F
On 03/27/2018 11:03 AM, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> models with shaders, game maps with scripting elements,
to be precise: shaders and other scripting elements are not merely
"functional"; they are literally source code
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 03/27/2018 09:39 AM, Chris Lamb wrote:
> First, just to clarify, this is to do with seeing firmware quote-errors-
> unquote when running update-initramfs and actually nothing to do with
> messages originating from the kernel / "dmesg".
thats all i was trying to determine - it is the kernel erro
On 03/27/2018 02:28 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> if pureos is hosting their source code on the puri.sm domain, that
> itself may be new FSDG problem to be addressed; but perhaps a
> contentious one
to avoid any misunderstanding here; i should qualify that by saying that
this is for no oth
yes i apologize for my poor choice of words there - that issue i raised
has nothing to do with commercial associations - in fact, the FSDG fully
allows for the distro itself to be a commercially operated entity - that
is, as i understand, essentially what ututo is - but, as far as i know,
the ututo
On Thu 2018-04-05 09:45:57 PM - KRT wrote:
> And the solution for privacy-minded folks then would be to either
> avoid QtWebEngine entirely, or else compile your own with these
> turned off at compile time? Seems like a hassle
but that is exactly why this is being discussed here
if it can b
On Sun 2018-04-08 11:53:31 AM - Sam wrote:
> I feel like there's an opportunity for integration of the FSDG
> blacklist and the Directory,
David Hedlund has recently begun an effort to cross-reference and
integrate them[1] and is looking for someone to help maintain it
[1]:
https://directory.fs
On Fri, 2018-04-27 at 19:25 +, kurtis wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering, should Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre be moved to
> "Distros
> currently being evaluated by the community" or to "Distros ready for
> final review by the FSF" on the LibrePlanet wiki [1]? Has anyone else
> on
> this list had
On Sat, 2018-04-28 at 03:31 +, André Silva wrote:
> I've responded to Donald that we are still interested in endorsement.
> [0] So, i don't see problems if you would start at the beginning to
> test
> run the new protocol for Hyperbola. :)
awesome so the procedure is detailed on the libreplen
On Sat, 2018-04-28 at 05:00 +, André Silva wrote:
> I've sent an application to around September
> 2017
> and it was ticketed as "gnu.org #1239092" and responded by Jason
> Self. [0]
>
> Should i send a new request to webmasters email or continue from
> "gnu.org #1239092" application?
>
> [0
On 04/28/2018 02:18 PM, Jason Self via RT wrote:
> Hyperbola seems a feasible candidate. Please request an endorsement
> from the dedicated mailing list . They
> should include a description of their new distro, a link to their
> home page, and any other useful info.
>
> They will take over fro
On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 20:26 +, André Silva wrote:
> Seems Hyperbola endorsement process (to be evaluated by community) is
> stalled for now.
>
> It's so early to be officially considered as stalled, however the first
> thing that came to my mind was in which if it persists for a long time
> (m
On 05/11/2018 04:19 PM, Benoît wrote:
> I am wondering where do you keep the NOTE in case someone wants
> to refer to anything in the future? Deleting them seems brutal but
> perhaps I am missing a piece where the NOTE is kept separately?
the idea is that the notes would indicate very briefly any
On 05/12/2018 10:17 AM, Benoît wrote:
> let me know if you
> want me to copy the comments here and for the future comments to put the
> details here instead of the template?
yes, i think it is for the benefit of all subscribers to watch the
progress that all information should be posted here befo
there is no expected format fir discussions as such - all of the
formalities are embodied on the "Incoming Distros" wiki - anything that
is not described there is open for discussion
one thing i did not expect is so much information at once - maybe it
would be most useful to take each criteria ite
to be clear about this criteria as i understand it - it is almost
entirely concerned with the name of the distro itself - to avoid the
distro being confused as being associated with or endorsed by some other
distro (such as if the distro were named: "arch-libre" or
"slackware-free") - the name "hyp
sure - if you have something to add now regarding the "avoiding
propaganda and confusion" criteria start a thread with that as a
distinct discussion topic
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 09:03:33AM +0100, Michael Dorrington wrote:
>> If Hyperbola is Free Culture then it won't be including the Emacs manual
>> nor the GCC manual nor anything else under GFDL with "invariant
>> sections".
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 09:31:49AM +0100, Michael Dorrington wrote:
>
Citing from: https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:main:social_contract
> Hyperbola is free culture: All documentation and
> cultural works included in Hyperbola are free
> culture, with the exceptions of: works stating a
> viewpoint, invariant sections and cover texts. All
> documentation an
On Mon, 2018-05-14 at 05:16 -0400, Ineiev wrote:
> In fact, many free software licenses have provisions
> against misrepresentation of the origin: I can't modify
> a program and say that it comes from the original authors
> unchanged; this still doesn't make that program nonfree
> in the sense of m
Benoît -
it seems that the impression you took of my suggestion for splitting the
criteria into separate threads was to only discuss one issue criteria at a time
and then wait for a conclusion before moving on to the next criteria - i only
meant that separate threads make the discussions more clea
i think adonay is mostly echo-ing my point that it is a shame that the
complete corresponding source requirement is not encouraged or even
mentioned as a option for artworks by those who have taken it upon
themselves to define "free culture" for everyone else - without that,
there is nothing to dis
to be clear - the points mentioned in the OP are not really what this
criteria is about - this one is less tangible and all-encompassing
beyond the actual software that is in the repos or technical safeguards
like the blacklist - for examples, all documentation such a wiki page
that mentions non-fr
indeed parabola is very interested in these new open design platforms
coincidentally, ebrasca just received his brand new talosII and has
begun porting parabola to POWER9 - if there is help available, im sure
he could use it because he is finding documentation to be scarce
as a side note, oaken-s
nothing in that message relates to the FSDG - did you send this message
to the wrong list perhaps?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
the hyperbola website is working fine
to be sure, i just checked all hyperbola web services
Home Packages Forums Wiki Issues Git Download
they are all working
still, the FSDG does not require the distro to maintain a website - it only
requires that there be some way to report bugs - that cou
i should append andreas's last message by saying that he was probably not
suggesting that the FSF should donate a machine to parabola - parabola is
actually not taking donations as an entity - it would surely be sufficient if
the FSF bought one of these for themselves and gave andreas and ebrasca a
o/c i could be wrong :) - i was *totally* presuming that when you turn one of
these on - you do not see only a blinking underscore and
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
oh so you are volunteering to move to boston Andreas?
i was imagining something like your final thought would be feasible because the
FSF tech team is active in their own freenode channel most of each day as a
standard routine
the original message mentioned that there could be some outside help -
for the benefit of anyone reading who is not entirely familiar with these tools
mentioned (md5, sha, gpg) - allow me to make some important distinctions - if
the concerned users who prompted this thread are not reading this list, i
suggest someone should bring these distinctions to their attention
Ineiev's comment raises another good point - this would be a good candidate for
a GNU article if there is not one already
the point being that community building is itself a tool to this end - it can be
recommended that rather than trusting implicitly in anything that your web
browser shows you, o
On Fri, 2018-06-22 at 19:05 +0200, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote:
> Would such thing be welcome on the Libreplanet wiki?
its a wiki so you can add anything you like to it; but no one will see new pages
unless there are links pointing to it from elsewhere - so probably the more
important question i
On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 11:33 +0200, Jean Louis wrote:
> If users don't know how to verify PGP fingerprints
> with the issues of the PGP key, and it is anyway
> unlikely that any serious percentage would be
> doing so, then we are wasting time by creating
> apparent security.
it is why package manag
On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 15:01 +0200, Jean Louis wrote:
> I cannot see what is preventing Hyperbola to be
> endorsed as of right now?
there is nothing preventing it - the hyperbola evaluation only started about a
month ago - if you look on the evaluation queue[1] there are noted 2 other
distros that
1 - 100 of 348 matches
Mail list logo
