Re: [gentoo-dev] adding app-crypt/gentoo-keys to @system

[Matthew Thode]

On 19-02-19 22:05:02, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 23:03:51 -0600
> Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote:
>
> > On 19-02-20 00:00:04, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > > On 2/19/19 11:21 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> What problem would this solve? (Is adding gentoo-keys to @system
> > > >> the least bad way to solve it?)
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > It'd allow the stage tarballs (3,4) to use webrsync-gpg to verify
> > > > portage tarballs.  This is useful for the initial sync (as called
> > > > out in our manual).  Otherwise using emerge-webrsync could be
> > > > mitm'd or otherwise messed with.
> > >
> > > Ok, then I agree with the goal if not the solution. This is a
> > > portage-specific thing, namely
> > >
> > >   FEATURES=webrsync-gpg
> > >
> > > that should be enabled by default on a stage3. (Making new users go
> > > out of their way to add basic security is daft.) Portage already has
> > > USE=rsync-verify, and I think we could either
> > >
> > >   a) expand the meaning of that flag to include enabling
> > > webrsync-gpg by default, and to pull in gentoo-keys; or
> > >
> > >   b) add another (default-on) flag like USE=webrsync-verify to do it
> > >
> > > That flag would be enabled by default, so gentoo-keys would be
> > > pulled in as part of @system without actually being *in* the
> > > @system. Something along those lines would achieve the same goal in
> > > a cleaner way.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > This worksforme (optional, default enabled dep of portage with a
> > default feature flag change).
> >
> > > > As far how we treat deps of @system packages, since this does not
> > > > have any deps that should help check that box for anyone
> > > > worried.
> > >
> > > I meant the other way around. Once gentoo-keys is in @system,
> > > packages will (inconsistently) omit gentoo-keys from (R)DEPEND.
> > > There's no real policy or consensus on the matter, and it makes it
> > > a real PITA if we ever want to remove things from @system, because
> > > lots of packages will break in unpredictable ways.
> > >
> >
> > Ah, ya, that makes sense.
> >
>
> One of the things that releng has bantered about the last few years is
> making a stage4 with these extra non @system pkgs.  The stage4 would
> allow all the extra pkgs needed for new installs without adding to
> @system.   The system set could possibly be trimmed a little more then
> too.  Then knowledgeable users could work with minimal stage3's when it
> suits their purpose while new users doing installs get the advantage of
> the additional pre-installed pkgs.
>

Ok, after setting that up portage wants to update pgp keys, which fail
because keyservers suck.  It doesn't look like we can change the
keyservers or disable the update entirely but we can set the retries to
0 (which better disable it...).  Robbat2 had a patch to allow disabling
the update but it doesn't look like it was applied.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)