On 09/07/2015 06:42 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 7 September 2015 at 13:21, Miloslav Trmac <m...@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.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
