Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Plan for initial integration of gemato with portage

[Michał Górny]

W dniu śro, 24.01.2018 o godzinie 12∶54 -0500, użytkownik Alec Warner
napisał:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
>
> > Hi, everyone.
> >
> > Since the initial review of my patch lost focus, and lacked sufficient
> > context, here's the plan that I'd like to follow in order to initially
> > integrate gemato with portage and give our users secure checkouts by
> > default.
> >
> > 1. Add postsync hook to Portage git. Eventually, it will be replaced by
> > direct Portage support.
> >
> > 2. Add IUSE=+rsync-verify to portage-9999 that controls installing the
> > hook. This will give users the ability to easily disable it without jumping
> > through cross package hoops.
> >
>
> I think it makes sense to avoid installing the hook through this means
> (e.g. I don't want it, so I set USE=-rsync-verify)
>
> I think its a bit trickier to control the hook's behavior. For instance:
>
> 1) I install portage[rsync-verify]. This installs the hook.
> 2) I end up not liking the hook, I install portage[-rsync-verify]
> 3) Does the hook get config-protected here?

Keeping config-protected files applies only if the file were modified.
In this case it just gets unmerged. I've just verified that.

> > 3. Submit a news item for review that will explain how to initially verify
> > the keys on existing installations.
> >
> > The news item would be published when the hook hits a release.
> >
> > What do you think? If you agree, then I'll start writing the news item.
> >
>
> The other part of the user story I don't understand is what actions should
> users take when verification legit fails?
>
> 1) file a bug?
> 2) re-sync their tree?
> 3) something else?

I'd say one re-sync would be reasonable in case it could have been some
rsync glitch. Beyond that, it would definitely be worth reporting...
except the user will probably hit another mirror.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny