1 |
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:05:15PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
2 |
> First I'd like to state that I do offer my opinion. You don't have to like it, |
3 |
> but disqualifying it as flaming, while exactly doing this yourself, |
4 |
> disqualifies you. |
5 |
|
6 |
*cough*. bit hypocritical for you to lecture me about viewing |
7 |
your statements as 'flaming', and in the same breath label |
8 |
my own as 'flaming' ;) |
9 |
|
10 |
Why am I pointing this out? My initial points were that of "why the |
11 |
double standard", with you providing an apt example (while that's |
12 |
barbed, you did provide a perfect refresher of the definition). |
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
> I'd appreciate, if you would try to have a controversial |
16 |
> discussion, without starting to loose your manners. |
17 |
|
18 |
And I'd appreciate a less condescending tone. |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
> On Wednesday 02 August 2006 03:39, Brian Harring wrote: |
22 |
> > 1) no security, |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > Suggest you read their responses, and look into some of their material |
25 |
> > (in particular their faq). |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> > Two levels. |
28 |
> > |
29 |
> > One, holding area (essentially). |
30 |
> > Second level (what users get), is the reviewed branch. |
31 |
> > |
32 |
> > So... if you're arguing people can stick malicious shit into the first |
33 |
> > level, yes, they could. |
34 |
> > [...] |
35 |
> |
36 |
> You haven't read what I wrote, as I asked you to do. |
37 |
|
38 |
You wrote 'no security'. That's pretty fricking vague, can cover |
39 |
everything from no verification of sync'd contents, to their vcs |
40 |
security, to their screening processes, to vulns in their packages. |
41 |
|
42 |
If you wanted to home in vulns in the source (which isn't security as |
43 |
much as 'vulnerabilities in the source'), be explicit. |
44 |
|
45 |
Now on to the real points (yay)... |
46 |
|
47 |
> My point isn't that |
48 |
> people add malicious ebuilds to the overlay. There're more subtle methods |
49 |
> anyway, given that the tree still isn't signed. I wrote about vulnerablities |
50 |
> in the upstream software, neither having a security team backing them up nor |
51 |
> GLSA's to be written. |
52 |
|
53 |
1) same issue with the ebuilds sitting in bugzilla, going to hunt |
54 |
through bugzie marking each submitted ebuild when a security bug hits? |
55 |
|
56 |
2) Response to that is that "there is no claim of support"- which is |
57 |
the same for sunrise. Why are the rules different for sunrise then? |
58 |
|
59 |
3) Assumption that sunrise will just be a dumping ground, without any |
60 |
form of maintainance is implicit here- if it becomes as such, already |
61 |
was stated it would get wedgied by the council. So that leaves the |
62 |
angle of "they don't have a security team", which implies to actually |
63 |
handle nuking vulnerable ebuilds, one has to have a security team |
64 |
(obviously false). |
65 |
|
66 |
Besides... frankly it's kind of BS to push the vuln angle onto sunrise |
67 |
when gentoo can't even clean out years old vulnerable packages from |
68 |
gentoo-x86 (that doesn't absolve sunrise from having to watch it, nor |
69 |
a potshot at the understaffed security team, merely that double |
70 |
standards suck). |
71 |
|
72 |
You want to set a standard for 'em, fine, lets use the standard of the |
73 |
existing tree when compared to existing glsas- note that there may be |
74 |
vulns that gentoo doesn't have glsas for, or vulns that are in the |
75 |
security pipeline and haven't yet been issued as a glsa (since gentoo |
76 |
issues it after porting). |
77 |
|
78 |
285 versions out of 24637 vulnerable (~1 out of every 86 vuln) |
79 |
115 packages out of 11251 vulnreable (~1 out of every 98 vuln) |
80 |
|
81 |
http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/vuln.log |
82 |
|
83 |
So... if that's the standard you want to hold them to, fine, state |
84 |
so- they may agree to it (although admittedly such a standard is |
85 |
stupid, there should be _no_ vuln packages). |
86 |
|
87 |
Don't automatically assume they'll be worse however, let alone assume |
88 |
that gentoo-x86 is perfect (again, no double standards). |
89 |
|
90 |
|
91 |
> > And... just cause I'm mildly sick of this bullshit, |
92 |
> |
93 |
> And I'm sick of people, who miss the point. |
94 |
|
95 |
As stated above, be concise then. Your points came out of pretty |
96 |
much nowhere, poorly communicated, and rather vague in actually |
97 |
backing them up. Which... at least from the "backing up the |
98 |
complaints", has been the theme for the screaming folk thus far. |
99 |
|
100 |
If people are missing the point, there are two possibilities- either |
101 |
A) everyone else is a moron and too stupid to understand your |
102 |
points, or more likely B) you're communicating poorly. |
103 |
|
104 |
Assuming that the other party is the idiot (a) when more likely then |
105 |
not it's you (B) isn't really a good way to try and get your say. |
106 |
|
107 |
|
108 |
> > > 2) issues with eclass changes which will result in bug spam |
109 |
> > |
110 |
> > You're not supposed to change the exposed api of eclasses in the tree |
111 |
> > (something y'all do violate I might add, which is a seperate QA |
112 |
> > matter). Same issue applies to the 'official' overlays offered by |
113 |
> > devs also, and to the tree in general. |
114 |
> |
115 |
> We can change eclasses all the time, assuming all relevant ebuilds in the tree |
116 |
> get adjusted - just that no one cares for any overlay. |
117 |
|
118 |
No, actually you cannot. |
119 |
|
120 |
Just because you update the tree doesn't mean you're not going and |
121 |
breaking binpkgs, or the vdb installation. |
122 |
|
123 |
Read glep33 if you want the sordid back history and solution to it. |
124 |
|
125 |
Like I said, y'all violate it, doesn't mean it's right. |
126 |
|
127 |
|
128 |
> > It's a reaching statement, bluntly. Using such an arguement has the |
129 |
> > side affect of stating that no overlays should ever exist, because |
130 |
> > they suffer the same potentials. |
131 |
> |
132 |
> Local overlays are fine as the user exactly knows what he does in his private |
133 |
> overlay (and hopefully follows eclass changes), development overlays are fine |
134 |
> (assuming the group of people controls the releavant overlays as well), |
135 |
> overlays like Sunrise are problematic, not to use such anal words as you do. |
136 |
|
137 |
Why are they problematic? Because of your assumption that they won't |
138 |
maintain it? |
139 |
|
140 |
It's the same thing as gentoo-x86 (I will keep stating that till it's |
141 |
grilled into peoples heads also), this is _not_ a new issue so why are |
142 |
people leveling issues of gentoo-x86 as new issues of sunrise? |
143 |
|
144 |
So someone goes and breaks something in gentoo-x86 that breaks |
145 |
something for sunrise. Fine, it's sunrises' mess to clean up; they've |
146 |
volunteered to do this work, I don't see how you can claim it as a |
147 |
negative when they've accepted it as part of _their_ work. |
148 |
|
149 |
|
150 |
> > > 3) the fact that sunrise is a bunch of arbitrary packages, instead close |
151 |
> > > related ones managed by one team, that does exactly maintain relevant |
152 |
> > > packages. |
153 |
> > |
154 |
> > What the hell do you think the tree is? It's a bunch of arbitrary |
155 |
> > packages maintained loosely by subgroups of people; you're stating |
156 |
> > that sunrise is too loose yet gentoo-x86 is fundamentally no |
157 |
> > different. |
158 |
> > |
159 |
> > Sunrise is pretty much the same damn thing. |
160 |
> |
161 |
> Exactly that isn't right. No one cares for compatibility of the main tree |
162 |
> (eclasses, conflicts between ebuilds with regards to installed files) and |
163 |
> Sunrise ebuilds. |
164 |
|
165 |
Worth noting sunrise folk may be gentoo devs also- and as stated |
166 |
above, they're trying to extend beyond gentoo-x86; it's not like |
167 |
they're demanding you do things their way- far from it, it's actually |
168 |
the reverse, devs demanding things of sunrise. You break their shit, |
169 |
they'll fix it (it's the nature of this relationship, even though it |
170 |
should be _cooperative_ instead of "get lost" that seems to be the |
171 |
norm now). |
172 |
|
173 |
So again... how is this a negative? It's *their* damn time- if you |
174 |
wanted to be an ass and go break their stuff, as retarded as it is you |
175 |
_could_ because they stepped up for the job. |
176 |
|
177 |
Granted, they may give you the finger and quit, or your remaining |
178 |
fellow devs may rightfully boot you for playing games, but the point |
179 |
stands- they stepped up to do the work, including cleaning up |
180 |
anything y'all may break for them. |
181 |
|
182 |
You're not limited- they're the ones limited via trying to not step on |
183 |
gentoo-x86's toes. How is that a negative then? |
184 |
|
185 |
~harring |