Fedora Ring 0 definition

[Brendan Conoboy]

On 09/07/2015 06:42 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
> 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. I've no opinion beyond that on
> whether it's considered part of ring 0 or cube beta.

I'm just one person with an opinion, it would be best if everybody 
with a stake took part in the ring definitions.  Creating additional 
rings that address communities where self-hosting is a foreign concept 
may be useful and desirable.  Making Fedora a first class OS for 
languages where rpm packaging doesn't make sense is great!

-- 
Brendan Conoboy / RHEL Development Coordinator / Red Hat, Inc.