2015-09-07 15:42 GMT+02:00 Ian Malone <ibmalone(a)gmail.com>:
On 7 September 2015 at 13:21, Miloslav Trmac <mitr(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> Also, it seems to me that it would be useful to, at least conceptually,
to
> not think about Fedora as a self-hosting perpetual motion^Wrecompilation
> machine, but as “just another huge application” being built using
compilers
> and other tools which come from $some_other_magic_place. That’s not to
say
> that self-hosting is not valuable—it is a critical property of the
subset of
> the Open Source ecosystem which Fedora distributes—but it is more of a
> property of the ecosystem than the produced artifacts.
I'm perfectly happy to leave this discussion to Redhat people, and I
think you have some good points about not letting implementation drive
goals. However people seem to be talking down self-hosting here. For
fedora as a distribution self-hosting is a part of the "Freedom"
foundation. It's no good insisting that source is available for
packages if they cannot be built. Similarly it's not just a part of
the ecosystem as that might imply, since the ability to improve and
extend it also requires self-hosting.
Oh I’m not at all suggesting that the Fedora universe should not be
self-hosting, or that this self-hosting property should not be regularly
verified by mass rebuilds or the like.
I just wanted to say that that having various *subsets* of the Fedora
universe, and especially the by-definition-smallest ring 0 or its immediate
superset, self hosting, is vastly complicating matters and I don’t see a
benefit to it.
Mirek