[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Joshua Gay
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:35:16 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0

>> So far, we identified an issue with distribution channels: Uruk
>> GNU/Linux has no its own repositories; Ali suggested some solution,
>> but I'm not sure whether it's acceptable; I hope Ali will explain it
>> here.
> can you explain why it should be an issue for an 100% free distro to
> not have its own repositories?

We have decided to update the GNU Free Distribution Guidelines to state
that a distro can rely upon the repositories of another 100% free distro
that is listed on the free-distros page. The exact wording of this has
not been figured out, but, the fact that Uruk relies upon Trisquel
GNU/Linux should no longer be viewed as a blocker.

Further, I am concerned that some of the feedback being given in this
thread is sending mixed messages. Specifically with regard to comments
about the quality of some of the code/scripts in the distro. i don't
know the details, so I am going to just make some general statements
that I think should cover most cases.

If code quality concerns you have tie in some way directly to some part
of the GNU Free Distribution Guidelines, then please be explicit in
stating exactly what the relationship is to the GFDG.

If your code quality feedback does not relate specifically to whether or
not a distro meets the guidelines, then please help by organizing that
feedback separately.

Lastly, if code quality is a concern because you believe that a distro
is too immature to be considered for review, then that is an issue you
could raise. But, please make sure to do that respectfully and with
care. If a person has gotten to the point where they have rebranded a
distro and added some new things and it actually works, then this
usually means that a lot of hard work and determination was required to
get to that point in the first place. You may even consider running such
a concern by the FSF licensing team or others privately to figure out a
good way to communicate such concerns to the maintainer.

I think that this list has been respectful and helpful and there are no
specific comments or indivdiuals I am alluding to: I just wanted to
share this last point as a general reminder. =]



reply via email to

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