gnu-linux-libre
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation


From: Ali Abdul Ghani
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:44:49 -0700

BTW, I make Script
to push fixs to uruk gnu/linux
but I'm afraid to use it
I test it
and its Work well
https://notabug.org/alimiracle/uur

2016-06-27 8:54 جرينتش-07:00, Ineiev <address@hidden>:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 03:43:18PM +0200, Jaromil wrote:
>> >
>> > The distro must be able to fix bugs in its packages; when they use
>> > other
>> > people's repositories (which is the case for Uruk GNU/Linux) they
>> > effectively can't do this (not directly).
>>
>> ok, but this is not a condition that is directly related to being 100%
>> free. it is a (debatable) concern on quality assurance that has
>> nothing to do with being 100% free.
>
> No, but it's directly related to being actively maintained, which is
> a condition for endorsing as a fully free distro; and this endorsement
> is exactly what we discuss.
>
>> For what we are concerned here, a distribution can be 100% free as-is
>> and without further upgrades, with one exception included in the 100%
>> free agreement for a "bounty".
>>
>> the "bounty" in brief: the maintainer(s) of a distribution should be
>> available to act and remove any non-free software that will be
>> spotted.
>>
>> To be available to do this does not entails the overhead of
>> maintaining an entire package repository! nor the imposition of using
>> a package manager instead of another, or perhaps even make your own
>> packaging, or just distribute iso updates, or squashed /usr... there
>> are many ways to update an OS..
>>
>> I believe that Uruk can be 100% free even without offering a whole
>> package repository, but just by publishing all sources (and
>> modifications to existing Trisquel's sources) and agreeing to the
>> bounty.
>
> I'd like, on the one hand, someone who may speak for the GNU project
> to confirm that such workflow is acceptable, and on the other hand,
> Uruk GNU/Linux developers to state that they've implemented it.
>


-- 
Emacs is the ground. We run around and act silly on top of it, and
when we die, may our remnants grace its ongoing incrementation.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]