[gentoo-dev] Sandboxes

[gentoo-dev] Sandboxes

[Alec Warner]

To hijack the overlay thread, I see a few things here:

MOTIVATION:

a) Developers don't like putting experimental stuff in the tree: This is
usually because Joe Ricer picks up the ebuild, 'tests' it, it breaks and
he files a bug.  Joe Ricer has no clue what went wrong or what he is
doing and said Developer gets annoyed as hell by Joe Ricer's lack of
knowledge/co-operation with regards to bug report.  For more popular
packages, multiply Joe Ricer by some random two digit number.

b) Developers want users to contribute too: Users don't have commit
access to the main tree (for good reason, as stated in the other
thread).  However developers would like users to be able to contribute
in some meaningful way to a project/package without the red tape that is
bugzilla.

PROPOSAL:

a) overlays.gentoo.org -> A sub-domain for hosting overlays or
'development sandboxes'.  Developers want an area for sandboxed
development of packages outside of the main tree.  As stated in the
previous thread this allows faster developer with less overread (QA,
changelogs, etc..).  These sandboxed areas also allow non-developers to
contribute to projects in a useful manner.

b) overlays.gentoo.org -> Is not meant for public consumption by users.
 overlays.gentoo.org is merely a development aid and not meant for
public consumption.  Users tend to not know how overlays are
implemented.  Multiple activated overlays also can cause hard to debug
issues as overlays over-ride ebuilds and eclass in each other and the
tree itself.

c) Overlays may be secured on an per-overlay basis to prevent normal
users from both reading and writing to the overlay.  For example a
project may wish to have an overlay and invite two or three
non-developers to contribute.  This makes creating small development
units easy, while keeping QA the main tree relatively high.

This is what I see, and this is kinda what I would want.  As an overlay
"creator" I should be able to add/remove accounts from my own overlay (
to reduce the load on the overlay project/infra ).  In essence, creating
a bunch of small communities for development.

Thoughts on ideas on this somewhat more focussed idea? ( or at least I
think it's more focused :P )

-Alec Warner
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sandboxes

[Stefan Schweizer]

On 3/24/06, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Thoughts on ideas on this somewhat more focussed idea? ( or at least I
> think it's more focused :P )

IMO motivation b) is not taken into account enough.

You are missing out a general-user-overlay, where the developer adding
a user to the access list would be responsible for him.

We really need a general user overlay for stuff that is abandoned in
the treee (maintainer-needed@gentoo.org) or stuff that has not even
been added to the tree (maintainer-wanted@gentoo.org). Those are
ebuilds that no developer is interested in, so a general way for users
needs to be present to be able to take care of those in a
policy-based-overlay instead of bugzilla. Also the overlay will be
easier to access and more bug-free as every person who is trusted by
gentoo-devs can just fix bugs that come up without spamming every CC:
on the list as it would be in bugzilla.

Regards,
Stefan

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sandboxes

[Alec Warner]

Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> On 3/24/06, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>>Thoughts on ideas on this somewhat more focussed idea? ( or at least I
>>think it's more focused :P )
> 
> 
> IMO motivation b) is not taken into account enough.
> 
> You are missing out a general-user-overlay, where the developer adding
> a user to the access list would be responsible for him.

Hmmm that is not an intended goal at this time.  "User-Contrib" sounds
overly too large.  The aim is to make the overlay rather small, to allow
normal users to contribute to development of packages.

> We really need a general user overlay for stuff that is abandoned in
> the treee (maintainer-needed@gentoo.org) or stuff that has not even
> been added to the tree (maintainer-wanted@gentoo.org). Those are
> ebuilds that no developer is interested in, so a general way for users
> needs to be present to be able to take care of those in a
> policy-based-overlay instead of bugzilla. Also the overlay will be
> easier to access and more bug-free as every person who is trusted by
> gentoo-devs can just fix bugs that come up without spamming every CC:
> on the list as it would be in bugzilla.

This generally breaks the rule of "overlays.gentoo.org is not for end
users."  The support in portage isn't there, the debugging is a
nightmare.  The point of overlays is to expedite *development* where
user A wants to help maintain package B because it's pragmatic for him
to do so, but he doesn't want to be a full Gentoo developer.  It is not
meant to be a "User-Contrib" overlay.  I think that should be a seperate
( if related ) project with different semantics.

> 
> Regards,
> Stefan
> 


-Alec Warner
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sandboxes

[Mike Frysinger]

so we're clear, users would be able to create their own overlays and publish 
their ebuilds right ?
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sandboxes

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 520 bytes --]

On Friday 24 March 2006 01:23, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> so we're clear, users would be able to create their own overlays and
> publish their ebuilds right ?

Not on gentoo servers though. They are able already and we can't prevent 
it. What I think an overlays.gentoo.org could add is something like 
planet.gentoo.org for ebuilds. I'd even be willing to move my personal 
overlay there and clean it up.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sandboxes

[Stuart Herbert]

On 3/24/06, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> so we're clear, users would be able to create their own overlays and publish
> their ebuilds right ?

Not on overlays.g.o, no.

Best regards,
Stu

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sandboxes

[Andrej Kacian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 354 bytes --]

Dňa Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:23:14 +0000
"Stuart Herbert" <stuart.herbert@gmail.com> napísal:

> On 3/24/06, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > so we're clear, users would be able to create their own overlays
> > and publish their ebuilds right ?
> 
> Not on overlays.g.o, no.
> 

FWIW, this is already possible on ebuildexchange.org.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 278 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sandboxes

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 24 March 2006 11:32, Andrej Kacian wrote:
> Dňa Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:23:14 +0000
>
> "Stuart Herbert" <stuart.herbert@gmail.com> napísal:
> > On 3/24/06, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > so we're clear, users would be able to create their own overlays
> > > and publish their ebuilds right ?
> >
> > Not on overlays.g.o, no.
>
> FWIW, this is already possible on ebuildexchange.org.

how about trying to help out visibility of these user-oriented sites then ... 
perhaps the front page of overlays.g.o would have a section on user driven 
sites ...
-mike

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Sandboxes

[Duncan]

Mike Frysinger posted <200603241323.11429.vapier@gentoo.org>, excerpted
below,  on Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:23:11 -0500:

> On Friday 24 March 2006 11:32, Andrej Kacian wrote:
>>
>> "Stuart Herbert" <stuart.herbert@gmail.com> napísal:
>> > On 3/24/06, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > > so we're clear, users would be able to create their own overlays
>> > > and publish their ebuilds right ?
>> >
>> > Not on overlays.g.o, no.
>>
>> FWIW, this is already possible on ebuildexchange.org.
> 
> how about trying to help out visibility of these user-oriented sites then ... 
> perhaps the front page of overlays.g.o would have a section on user driven 
> sites ...

I like the idea of a pointer to user sites, tho I too would be
uncomfortable having j. random user's ebuilds on *.gentoo.org
(specifically hand-selected users that are working with specific devs is
different, particularly where a dev then retains some accountability for
said selection).

One thing to remember, however.  In the US at least, linking to specific
illegal material is considered illegal in itself.  There is a "common
carrier" exemption, however, with the caveat of DMCA takedown notices. 
Thus, the section on user overlays couldn't mention any non-Gentoo
controlled j random user overlays specifically.

What /could/ happen is that the overlays front-page story introduces the
concept in general terms, with a link to a forum for discussion.  The
forum infrastructure would then provide the ability for users to link
to various overlays, and take care of any abuse or DMCA takedown notices
as it already does.  That would keep Gentoo's involvement legal and
above-board.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sandboxes

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 24 March 2006 21:30, Duncan wrote:
> One thing to remember, however.  In the US at least, linking to specific
> illegal material is considered illegal in itself.

US laws are gay

> There is a "common 
> carrier" exemption, however, with the caveat of DMCA takedown notices.
> Thus, the section on user overlays couldn't mention any non-Gentoo
> controlled j random user overlays specifically.

we're pointing to sites, not the material itself
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sandboxes

[Lars Strojny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 545 bytes --]

Hi,

Am Montag, den 27.03.2006, 15:17 -0500 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
[...]
> US laws are gay

Homophobia is gay ;-)

Greets, Lars
-- 
      "Kriterium des Wahren ist nicht seine unmittelbare
          Kommunizierbarkeit an jedermann"
         -- Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno, aus: »Negative Dialektik«

name: Lars H. Strojny      web: http://strojny.net 
street: Engelsstraße 23    blog: http://usrportage.de
city: D-51103 Köln         mail/jabber: lars@strojny.net
f-print: 1FD5 D8EE D996 8E3E 1417  328A 240F 17EB 0263 AC07

[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 829 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sandboxes

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 28 March 2006 15:31, Lars Strojny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Montag, den 27.03.2006, 15:17 -0500 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> [...]
>
> > US laws are gay
>
> Homophobia is gay ;-)

/me sticks it in your butt

feel better ?  i know i do
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sandboxes

[Thomas Cort]

> Thoughts on ideas on this somewhat more focussed idea? ( or at least I
> think it's more focused :P )

Will there be restrictions on what can go into these overlays? There
are some ebuilds that aren't allowed in the main portage tree. One
example is winex-cvs (see
app-emulation/winex-cvs/winex-cvs-3000.ebuild for details). Another
example... an overlay dev could take an existing ebuild that has
RESTRICT="fetch" and modify it to fetch the package directly without
user interaction.

Cheers!
-Thomas

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sandboxes

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 980 bytes --]

On Friday 24 March 2006 01:54, Thomas Cort wrote:
> > Thoughts on ideas on this somewhat more focussed idea? ( or at least
> > I think it's more focused :P )
>
> Will there be restrictions on what can go into these overlays? There
> are some ebuilds that aren't allowed in the main portage tree. One
> example is winex-cvs (see
> app-emulation/winex-cvs/winex-cvs-3000.ebuild for details). Another
> example... an overlay dev could take an existing ebuild that has
> RESTRICT="fetch" and modify it to fetch the package directly without
> user interaction.

Things that are not suited for public consumption should not be made 
public in the first place. This is one reason that I don't think that 
users should be given the opportunity to create their own gentoo-hosed 
overlays. I believe that developers could be trusted though to do things 
properly.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sandboxes

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 925 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 09:52:30AM +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Things that are not suited for public consumption should not be made 
> public in the first place. This is one reason that I don't think that 
> users should be given the opportunity to create their own gentoo-hosed 
> overlays. I believe that developers could be trusted though to do things 
> properly.

I agree. The proposal sounds like a great way of getting more
experienced users to contribute to the project, yet it still keeps the
broken/illegal/etc ebuilds written by some of our less experienced
users non-official (where official = hosted on *.gentoo.org).

I'm in favor of a overlays.g.o as the companion to planet.g.o with
selected users contributin, but I'd hate to see plain end-user
overlays hosted on *.gentoo.org.

Regards,
Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sandboxes

[Kalin KOZHUHAROV]

Thomas Cort wrote:
>> Thoughts on ideas on this somewhat more focussed idea? ( or at least I
>> think it's more focused :P )
> 
> Will there be restrictions on what can go into these overlays? There
> are some ebuilds that aren't allowed in the main portage tree. One
> example is winex-cvs (see
> app-emulation/winex-cvs/winex-cvs-3000.ebuild for details).

Interesting comments, and I cannot blame them too much.

> Another
> example... an overlay dev could take an existing ebuild that has
> RESTRICT="fetch" and modify it to fetch the package directly without
> user interaction.

Yes, this one is a good example.

So, in order not to be utterly responsible for distributing such things
as *semi-offcial* gentoo work, I'd suggest just providing a bit easier
way to use external overlays than the current one (which is easy enough
once you set it up, but generally hard for n00bs).

I have my own overlay for quite some time and it had helped a few people,
not counting me (/me != dev) [1]

[1]	http://rsync.tar.bz/

I know this is always a topic on whether to have a knife is good or bad,
and whether just possessing a gun makes you a bad guy...
Same is here - if there is a possibility some people will eventually
abuse it. But is this enough to disallow it whatsoever.

Kalin.


-- 
|[ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ]|
+-> http://ThinRope.net/ <-+
|[ ______________________ ]|

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sandboxes

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 23 March 2006 19:54, Thomas Cort wrote:
> Will there be restrictions on what can go into these overlays?

common sense
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sandboxes

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2448 bytes --]

On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 18:45 -0500, Alec Warner wrote:
> PROPOSAL:
> 
> a) overlays.gentoo.org -> A sub-domain for hosting overlays or
> 'development sandboxes'.  Developers want an area for sandboxed
> development of packages outside of the main tree.  As stated in the
> previous thread this allows faster developer with less overread (QA,
> changelogs, etc..).  These sandboxed areas also allow non-developers to
> contribute to projects in a useful manner.
> 
> b) overlays.gentoo.org -> Is not meant for public consumption by users.
>  overlays.gentoo.org is merely a development aid and not meant for
> public consumption.  Users tend to not know how overlays are
> implemented.  Multiple activated overlays also can cause hard to debug
> issues as overlays over-ride ebuilds and eclass in each other and the
> tree itself.
> 
> c) Overlays may be secured on an per-overlay basis to prevent normal
> users from both reading and writing to the overlay.  For example a
> project may wish to have an overlay and invite two or three
> non-developers to contribute.  This makes creating small development
> units easy, while keeping QA the main tree relatively high.
> 
> This is what I see, and this is kinda what I would want.  As an overlay
> "creator" I should be able to add/remove accounts from my own overlay (
> to reduce the load on the overlay project/infra ).  In essence, creating
> a bunch of small communities for development.
> 
> Thoughts on ideas on this somewhat more focussed idea? ( or at least I
> think it's more focused :P )

OK.

I have an idea for a compromise, then.

An overlay, when created is not readable by anyone without an account.
The new overlay is governed by whatever rules that the overlay owners
wish to use.  However, before an overlay can be opened up for public RO
access, one simple rule must be followed:  It must not break the normal
tree through its use.  What this means is if you've got some whiz-bang
version of foo out that that requires changes to bar.eclass, then
bar.eclass (in your overlay) needs to remain backwards compatible with
what is in the tree insofar as it does not break non-overlay ebuilds
through its use.

With this *single* policy, we manage to reduce the problems that have
been brought up in the other threads.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]