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

[Ineiev]

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.

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature