Fedora Ring 0 definition

[Miloslav Trmac]

2015-09-07 15:42 GMT+02:00 Ian Malone <ibmalone at gmail.com>:

> On 7 September 2015 at 13:21, Miloslav Trmac <mitr at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150907/5aa1af11/attachment.html>