From: Kurt Lieber <klieber@gentoo.org>
To: Tavis Ormandy <taviso@gentoo.org>
Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Finger GLEP
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:27:37 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030810232734.GJ1819@mail.lieber.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030810223914.GB27538@sdf.lonestar.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1612 bytes --]
On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 10:39:14PM +0000 or thereabouts, Tavis Ormandy wrote:
> Hey, please find attached a glep proposal for a Gentoo.org Finger
> Daemon in docutils text.
OK, I guess this one is an infrastructure GLEP to approve/reject. I'd also
like to get input from seemant as the devrel manager.
I have security concerns about running fingerd, but I can see how the
benefits outweigh the risks in this case. However, there are still several
areas that I don't see being addressed by this GLEP:
1) We already suffer from what I call "information sprawl" right now,
meaning we have the same information spread out across multiple places,
with no one place being the "master repository". The net result of this is
that users have to hunt through multiple repositories to try to find out
which one the developer chose to use for their particular query.
What ensures that the data available via fingerd will be a) complete
(meaning how will you ensure all developers participate) and b) up-to-date?
IMO, we need to identify one master source of information and *ensure* that
is used and kept up-to-date. If we want to provide multiple avenues to
access that info, that's fine, but we need one database, not multiple ones.
2) Tangental to the issue above, we've already talked about placing things
like GPG keys on the web site in XML format and pulling the other info (dev
name, location, projects, etc.) in via XML as well. Why is the fingerd
solution a better one? Items on the web site are updated hourly. I can't
think of too many cases where that type of freshness isn't timely enough.
--kurt
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-10 23:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-10 22:39 [gentoo-dev] Finger GLEP Tavis Ormandy
2003-08-10 23:27 ` Kurt Lieber [this message]
2003-08-10 23:36 ` Seemant Kulleen
2003-08-11 0:17 ` Tavis Ormandy
2003-08-11 0:57 ` Spider
2003-08-11 0:02 ` Tavis Ormandy
2003-08-11 9:22 ` Kurt Lieber
2003-08-11 11:35 ` Tavis Ormandy
2003-08-11 12:37 ` Paul de Vrieze
2003-08-11 12:59 ` Tavis Ormandy
2003-08-11 13:33 ` Kurt Lieber
2003-08-11 14:01 ` Tavis Ormandy
2003-08-11 0:03 ` Grant Goodyear
2003-08-11 8:05 ` Paul de Vrieze
2003-08-11 1:17 ` Aron Griffis
2003-08-11 8:24 ` Paul de Vrieze
2003-08-11 12:09 ` Tavis Ormandy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030810232734.GJ1819@mail.lieber.org \
--to=klieber@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@gentoo.org \
--cc=taviso@gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox