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 <[email protected]>: > 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.
