| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:03 PM Yury German <blueknight@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> >> One idea I had infra-wise was to expand the idea of our devspace. |
| 6 |
> >> Increase the footprint of our virtualizatoin infra and (on request) give |
| 7 |
> >> devs a VM for dev work. Possibly even do some arm64 or ppc64 work there |
| 8 |
> >> too. Beyond that, running a binhost may be an idea, get people |
| 9 |
> >> bootstrapped faster. |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> I do agree with K_F in that targeting existing confrences would be nice. |
| 12 |
> >> I think the two we'd have the most luck in would be fosdem scale. |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >> A bug bounty program sounds neat, we could take input on bugs to target |
| 15 |
> >> from council I think. (I personally would like to work on make gentoo |
| 16 |
> >> better support openstack-ansible :D). |
| 17 |
> >> |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > It would be nice to also have an official way to quickly start off full |
| 20 |
> > up-to-date system images, possibly in multiple variants. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> So I have been running an unofficial binhost server for a while until my |
| 24 |
> provider had problems. |
| 25 |
> It helps a lot to have it especially for architectures that are not |
| 26 |
> processor front loaded (arm v6 and v7 / arm64). |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> What prevents us from running an Official binhost? Do we really need |
| 29 |
> Foundation approval (nothing against Foundation). |
| 30 |
> It would just be forming an official project would’t it? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I suspect there are some technical challenges (its similar to distfiles |
| 34 |
hosting in terms of proving the binpkgs are good, requiring signed metadata |
| 35 |
so clients can verify and so on.) From the Foundation PoV no approval is |
| 36 |
required to run a binhost; just people to set it up and to submit a funding |
| 37 |
request. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-A |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> BlueKnight |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> |
Archives