[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] RLSD GNU/Linux-libre 2.x

From: fr33domlover
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] RLSD GNU/Linux-libre 2.x
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 19:49:09 +0300

On 2015-04-26
"Jason Self" <address@hidden> wrote:

> fr33domlover <address@hidden> asked:
> > What if a distro is not self-hosting, but can be built from another
> > fully free distro which is on the FSF's list of free distros?
> An exception to self-hosting is addressed in the GNU FSDG already.
> This was added for clarity due to LibreWRT, which targets embedded
> devices that don't have the resources to compile their own software.
> x86/x86_64 machines, in comparison, do.

Yes, I'm aware of the exception, but it's for distros targetting only embedded
devices iirc.

> "An exception to this requirement and to the self-hosting requirement
> above is for small system distributions, which are distros designed
> for devices with limited resources, like a wireless router for
> example. Free small system distributions do not need to be
> self-hosting or complete, because it is impractical to do development
> on such a system, but it must be developable and buildable on top of a
> free complete system distribution from our list of distributions,
> perhaps with the aid of free tools distributed alongside the small
> system distribution itself."

I see. But why would a tiny distro for old hardware do all the work (probably
doubling the number of packages in the best case) needed to add the entire
toolchain for development and building and compiling and configuring and all
the dependencies (such as the scripting languages used by git and other tools)?
I'd just like to understand why something with minimal benefit but a lot of
work prevents a distro from being on the FSF list. A bigger list motivates more
people, shows progress towards freedom and helps people find a new fully free

Why is the requirement to be self-hosting critical? In 2015
there is an established set of fully free distros on which new ones can be
built. If the ability to have a tiny number of packages and be built from
another distro blocks a distro for old hardware from being on the list, I at
least wish to know why.

In other words, why is "must be self-hosting if resources allow on some subset
of the target devices" a strict requirement for getting into the list, while
building on another free distro isn't good enough?

fr33domlover         <>
GPG key ID:          63E5E57D (size: 4096)
GPG key fingerprint: 6FEE C222 7323 EF85 A49D  5487 5252 C5C8 63E5 E57D

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]