Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] New project: GURU [Gentoo User Repository, Unreviewed]
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 13:54:47
Message-Id: 1549288480.893.7.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] New project: GURU [Gentoo User Repository, Unreviewed] by Alexis Ballier
1 On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 14:48 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
2 > On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 14:28:28 +0100
3 > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 > > On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 11:58 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
6 > > > On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 20:28:49 +0100
7 > > > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
8 > > >
9 > > > > ---
10 > > > > What do you think?
11 > > > >
12 > > >
13 > > > What is the difference with sunrise ?
14 > >
15 > > The difference, as noted in the mail, is that it doesn't rely
16 > > on developers having time to review ebuilds. Therefore, it is less
17 > > likely to die because of developers lacking time to review stuff.
18 >
19 >
20 > Then I fear you will see the same pitfalls, and it already started: I
21 > recall sunrise haters being very strongly against the idea because,
22 > TBH, our sandboxing mechanism isn't a real sandbox. It may have
23 > improved, but I doubt it's up to the point that we can safely run
24 > untrusted code there.
25
26 Sandboxing has nothing to do with security, and trying to 'improve' its
27 security is a waste of time. What's the point of preventing ebuilds
28 from doing malicious things at build time if they can install files that
29 do malicious things afterwards?
30
31 >
32 >
33 > >
34 > > > One of the advantages of sunrise is that it had 2 repos: One
35 > > > unreviewed, without Gentoo official name and big fat warnings, one
36 > > > reviewed by devs more widely available.
37 > >
38 > > No.
39 > >
40 > > First of all, they weren't really two repos -- they were more like
41 > > private and public branches which were made into two repos due to
42 > > technical limitations. With the public branch getting all the commits
43 > > from private branch merged.
44 >
45 >
46 > Yeah, that's the same idea but modernized.
47 >
48 >
49 > > Secondly, both branches were reviewed. The difference is that people
50 > > were supposed to ask for (IRC) review before committing to the first
51 > > branch, and only developers were allowed to merge to the second
52 > > branch.
53 >
54 > That's also the same idea to me.
55
56 I was correcting your mistakes about Sunrise, not describing GURU.
57
58 --
59 Best regards,
60 Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies