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
On Jan 27, 2018, bill-auger wrote:
> the scripts are based on a fedora v20 target system and require packages
> from corresponding versioned repos on fedora, freedora, and also a
> native blag repo - the fedora archives are still available but the
> oldest available freedora repo is v25 so that h
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
This thread is getting a bit off topic, but...
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 00:49:33 -0500,
bill-auger wrote:
> i wll mention this next bit for completeness, only because no one else
> has yet; though luke alluded to it (lest this thread go irreversibly off
> topic) - that 'URL' stands for "universal resou
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
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 :)
On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 21:38:29 bill-auger wrote:
> 'www.' is indeed just a convention but it is not a "trad
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:25:43 -0500,
Julie Marchant wrote:
> I get the impression that the whole trend of using the "www" subdomain
> came from Usenet hierarchies. Is that accurate?
It's important to understand that one host might not handle all of the
services associated with a domain. The "A" re
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 05:58:18 -0500,
Andrew Nesbit wrote:
>
> On 25/01/2018 02:38, bill-auger wrote:
>
> > in the case of the 'www.' sub-domain in 'http://www.foo.com', that
> > clearly identifies the HTTP "World Wide Web" server of foo.com
> As a somewhat relevant side issue, what are the rules
On 25/01/2018 11:38, Jean Louis wrote:
> Good starting point with references is here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdomain
>
> In general, if the owner of the website does not
> give you link with "www" such shall not be used
> and referred, especially if other link is simply
> working.
My
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:58:18AM +, Andrew Nesbit wrote:
> On 25/01/2018 02:38, bill-auger wrote:
>
> > in the case of the 'www.' sub-domain in 'http://www.foo.com', that
> > clearly identifies the HTTP "World Wide Web" server of foo.com
> As a somewhat relevant side issue, what are the rul
On 25/01/2018 02:38, bill-auger wrote:
> in the case of the 'www.' sub-domain in 'http://www.foo.com', that
> clearly identifies the HTTP "World Wide Web" server of foo.com
As a somewhat relevant side issue, what are the rules or conventions
regarding URLs with unadorned directory or file compone
'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
This is my understanding as well. In a way, www subdomain is a total nuisance.
It is entirely traditional, but now every web user expects a redirect,
consciously or not, so that they can use example.com in lieu of
www.example.com, and still end up in the same place. But this doesn't "just
happe
If I recall correctly the use of "www" is for some load balancing
purposes, where the domain owner could set the page-only content of his
site to "www" subdomain and have the main domain redirect to "www",
while the site contet itself could refer to a separate subdomain like
"images" in the main do
Le Mer 24 Jan 2018 16:40:23, s...@dragora.org a écrit :
[...]
> Please do not do that, linking to the full address.. because the current
> website is running under Fossil[1], and we migrate the project to Git
> (again) under Savannah[2][3], the migration to a new website is pending,
> I have to pla
I get the impression that the whole trend of using the "www" subdomain
came from Usenet hierarchies. Is that accurate?
In any case, many websites these days don't do that anymore, and even
when they did it was never necessary. So yeah, it's inaccurate to say
that websites' URLs *should* have that
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:47:04 +0100
Jean Louis wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:29:52AM -0500, Therese Godefroy via RT
> wrote:
> > > Description", if the intention is to read the full description
> > > from website project.
> >
> > Done.
> >
> > > Also, to keep more uniform the links fo
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:29:52AM -0500, Therese Godefroy via RT wrote:
> > Description", if the intention is to read the full description from
> > website project.
>
> Done.
>
> > Also, to keep more uniform the links for the project websites, it would
> > be good if starts with 'www.' for the
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:29:52 -0500
"Therese Godefroy via RT" wrote:
> Thanks for your input.
No problem.
> Le Mer 24 Jan 2018 08:30:54, s...@dragora.org a écrit :
>
> > I suggest changing the field title "Description" to "Brief
> > Description", if the intention is to read the full descripti
Hello Matias, hello Denis,
Thanks for your input.
Le Mer 24 Jan 2018 08:30:54, s...@dragora.org a écrit :
> I suggest changing the field title "Description" to "Brief
> Description", if the intention is to read the full description from
> website project.
Done.
> Also, to keep more uniform t
Hello,
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 07:34:23 -0500
"Therese Godefroy via RT" wrote:
> Le Lun 22 Jan 2018 05:15:43, godef...@free.fr a écrit :
> [...]
> > I don't think it's a good idea to dump such a long thread on them.
> > The request would certainly go directly to the bottom of their todo
> > list and
dear Therese,
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018, Therese Godefroy via RT wrote:
> After looking more closely at the free-distros page, I found many
> more things that need fixing: redundant or misplaced sentences, need
> for sections and table of contents, styling, etc. I'd like to have
> your feedback on the
Le Lun 22 Jan 2018 05:15:43, godef...@free.fr a écrit :
[...]
> I don't think it's a good idea to dump such a long thread on them. The
> request would certainly go directly to the bottom of their todo list
> and stay there. It would be more efficient to give them a few lines of
> explanation, along
Le Dim 21 Jan 2018 19:12:11, js...@gnu.org a écrit :
> One way is that this ticket can be moved into the licensing queue with
> ideas/feedback/suggestions added.
Hi Jason,
I don't think it's a good idea to dump such a long thread on them. The request
would certainly go directly to the bottom of
Le Dim 21 Jan 2018 14:22:11, j...@jxself.org a écrit :
[...]
> 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.
>
> [0] https://www.gnu.org/server/standards/
OK Jason, I know all this. Nobody is going
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
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
Therese Godefroy via RT wrote ..
> I would be delighted to comment out Blag until it resurrects.
The free distro page is supposed to be maintained by the FSF's
Licensing and Compliance Lab, not the GNU Webmasters. Given that the
GNU Webmasters aren't supposed to add new distros [0] I would take
Le Sam 20 Jan 2018 14:10:25, luke...@lukeshu.com a écrit :
[...]
> I do agree that it would be good for distros intended for read-only
> media to have that indicated on the page, but that could just be in
> the distro description, I don't think they need to be moved to a
> separate section.
Now th
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 21:28:47 -0500,
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2018, Caleb Herbert wrote:
>
> > wouldn't dropping them from the list act as a wake-up call
> > to hurry up?
>
> Maybe that would be too drastic. After all, even if old and
> unmaintained, it's still Free Software. Perhaps
On Jan 17, 2018, bill-auger wrote:
> blag actually has no software available - the download links on their
> website have not worked in a very long time because (as ive heard) the
> files were lost
The server was broken into and then brought down, IIUC. There are
backups, so nothing was really
On Jan 19, 2018, Caleb Herbert wrote:
> wouldn't dropping them from the list act as a wake-up call
> to hurry up?
Maybe that would be too drastic. After all, even if old and
unmaintained, it's still Free Software. Perhaps we'd be better off
breaking up the section of self-hosted distros into m
Hello Jaromil,
Le Ven 19 Jan 2018 09:41:10, jaro...@dyne.org a écrit :
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Therese Godefroy via RT wrote:
>
> > Besides, it's very easy to do: when a distro becomes "dangerously"
> > unmaintained (meaning no security updates, unless it is never used
> > on the net), just commen
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Therese Godefroy via RT wrote:
> Besides, it's very easy to do: when a distro becomes "dangerously"
> unmaintained (meaning no security updates, unless it is never used
> on the net), just comment out the corresponding entry in
> /distros/free-distros.html and /help/gnu-bucks.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, bill-auger wrote:
> my opinion however, is that there is no reason to remove a distro from
> the list only for being unmaintained - if it works: it works - and
> always will - but the case with blag is something different - blag
> actually has no software available - the downl
Hi everyone,
this conversation keeps coming back constantly, may we have a FAQ
about this? In a previous mail to this list I've stressed some aspects
about the perception of what is "actively maintained" and what not.
For now I confirm that dyne:bolic is active. We are very busy working
on a fou
Le Ven 19 Jan 2018 04:25:56, c...@bluehome.net a écrit :
>
> > For some examples my understanding is that people are working on BLAG,
> > and Dragora has published a new beta version for 3.0. It seems better to
> > try to support such efforts instead of dropping them. We need more people
> > wo
> For some examples my understanding is that people are working on BLAG,
> and Dragora has published a new beta version for 3.0. It seems better to
> try to support such efforts instead of dropping them. We need more people
> working on 100% free distros, not less. :)
It is true that we need t
I really like all of these suggestions, and with respect to the security
standard to meet, I feel that maintainers should do at least so much: publish
(prominently!) the list of known and reported vulnerabilities which won't be
fixed, and the reasons for not fixing them. If they can make a techn
On 2018年01月17日 16:32, 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." When this has
> come up in the past, the determination of being actively maintained was
> said to rest with the distro mai
I recall seeing a Trisquel forum post about some BLAG 20 Alpha
Kickstart files ([1]), it seems that forum post has the attachment which
has the files inside.
It's somewhat different/unusual for a distro to rely on the forum of
another to post its own files (:S) ... But let's consider that as O
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
bill-auger wrote ..
> then the obvious question would be if the OP will see these replies if
> they are not subscribed to this mailing list
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?
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
bill-auger wrote ..
> where is this ticket that you reference? gnu.org #1262331 - it is not
> on the CC list - is that a on public tracker?
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.
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
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
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 major distro which
> itself isn't maintained anymore? I am thinking of Blag, based on Fedora
> 10 (2010).
That's already a thing: One
Hello,
Although this ticket only makes unsupported statements, the OP may have a point.
Should a distro that hasn't been maintained for several years be listed in
free-distros.html, especially if it is based on a major distro which itself
isn't maintained anymore? I am thinking of Blag, based o
49 matches
Mail list logo
