On Sun, 26 Jun 2016, Ineiev wrote: > 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).
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. 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. ciao p.s. for Devuan we are developing and using a new package repository software that helps those who want to overlay a small subset of changed packages and fallback (by http redirect) on a larger repository. https://git.devuan.org/devuan-infrastructure/amprolla amprolla may facilitate doing what you intended, but again that is not a condition for being 100% free.
