Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:20:37 -0700
Todd Weaver <address@hidden> wrote:

> Well this thread took a turn way off topic.
Indeed, sorry for that.

> This is IRRELEVANT to getting PureOS distribution endorsement.
> It is VERY RELEVANT to getting FSF RYF certification.
I wasn't suggesting that it was relevant at all.
I was just responding to the thread.
Note that I also CC-ed you you on purpose, so you could respond to my
comments, or correct me if I was wrong.

> We are trying to have PureOS, our distribution reviewed, nothing more.
> So let's discuss those points.
That's why I (also) pointed to the libreplanet wiki resource hoping that
it would help PureOS become FSDG compliant.

> > I wonder if the fact that they didn't chose an unmodified Trisquel
> > is due to some integration of Tor inside their distribution.  
> 
> We originally chose trisquel, but being fourth forked from Debian
> didn't make much sense, when we can get closer to a reliable upstream
> provider such as Debian, and meet the same goals.
It might be interesting to collaborate with Debian to reach the FSDG
status. I would guess that they still do accept bug-reports related to
it. The idea would be to both benefit from each other work, to minimize
the amount of work done.

> We are ONLY working on PureOS distribution endorsement in this thread.
> Please stop combining the two.
Should I continue on another thread for the non-pureOS related
discussion?
If so, is that mailing list appropriate?

Denis.

pgpqCzrXqhZv3.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature