On 7 September 2015 at 13:21, Miloslav Trmac <mitr@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
