On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 02:31:57 +0200 Denis wrote: > That said, there may or may not be requirements that are not in > the FSDG (for instance if the FSDG is not complete, or because no one > though of new problematic cases or issues, or just because some class > of problems usually never happens for one reason or another).
its probably all of those things - i prefer to be as rigorous as possible though - at least to sort things out, make some determinations, and most importantly, to docujments them and apply them, rather then leaving unnecessarily vague things remain vague and contentious - arguments about the vagueness of the FSDG, account for the majority of time spent on this mailing list - it is very inefficient On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 02:31:57 +0200 Denis wrote: > And I think that not self-hosting your own infrastructure is not > necessarily a binary situation: for instance Guix doesn't control all > its infrastructure (because GNU, not Guix controls part of it) > > A requirement like that would also forbid using savannah for hosting > your source code, forbid secondary mirrors managed by the project, etc. to sort that out: there is a huge difference between GNU managing the infra for GNU projects, vs relying on a completely unrelated third-party, which has no obligation to provide those services to the project - GNU is obligated to GNU projects - pureos is not obligated to uruk in the same way (not in any way, in fact) - pureos has every right to obstruct uruk users from accessing their servers likewise, hosting your source code on a third-party forge is still very different - i would recommend against that; but still, the project has sufficient autonomy using forges - they can decide what goes in or out of it, fix bugs, and so on - i would consider that as sufficiently providing and maintaining that source code - but in this case, the majority of the software in uruk, is literally "not provided" nor maintained by that distro - the distro maintainers have zero control over the majority of the software that their users use i think that discrepancy is very significant - the distro should have complete autonomy over all distributed software - all that uruk would need to do, is to mirror the pureos repos, to gain complete autonomy to filter it, or replace packages with bug-fixed versions, etc that may be a adequate clarification, what i would add to the "complete distros" section: > Distro maintainers must have complete autonomy over all software that they > distribute. i really dont think that is expecting too much - i would tend to see it as essential, if i were choosing a distro despite my preference on this topic, i would like to concede this for now - i have offered a proposal to accommodate this situation, as something of a concession - maybe that would satisfy everyone On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 02:31:57 +0200 Denis wrote: > Though for now it's probably easier to just focus on the review of uruk > right now and for things that are not inside the FSDG, to request > changes like that on the basis of making the review faster. its really all we can do now - my concern now is only of the future - it appears to me, that this review of uruk is going to get snagged against the past unresolved problems with the FSDG itself - it has already gotten snagged on the mis-management problem; but there are others lurking ahead on the path - the kernel in that repo is another major unresolved conflict for this work-group indeed, most of the review could be done now, and i think that it should be; but IMHO this distro should not be able to pass review on the face of it, due to the current circumstances - the FSDG status of pureos is contingent on the resolution of two major long-standing unresolved conflicts - i am not comfortable bringing in another with the same contingencies, until those conflicts get resolved in fact i am not pleased to be involved in this work-group at all, until those conflicts get resolved
