[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation
From: |
Ineiev |
Subject: |
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:24:42 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
Ahoj, Jaromil;
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 02:44:23PM +0200, Jaromil wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2016, Ineiev wrote:
>
> > 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?
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).
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation, Ineiev, 2016/06/24
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation, Ali Abdul Ghani, 2016/06/24
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation, Jaromil, 2016/06/26
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation,
Ineiev <=
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation, Jaromil, 2016/06/27
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation, Ineiev, 2016/06/27
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation, Ali Abdul Ghani, 2016/06/27
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation, Jaromil, 2016/06/28
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] criteria for listing as fully free [was: Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation], Ineiev, 2016/06/28
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] criteria for listing as fully free [was: Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation], hellekin, 2016/06/28
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation, Ineiev, 2016/06/28
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation, Ali Abdul Ghani, 2016/06/28
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation, Jaromil, 2016/06/28
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation, Joshua Gay, 2016/06/28