2015-09-07 15:42 GMT+02:00 Ian Malone <ibmalone@xxxxxxxxx>:
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.
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
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
