From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A25C5138334 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 05:28:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4548AE094E; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 05:28:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD6AEE08C8 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 05:28:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (c134-66.icpnet.pl [85.221.134.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A4AF34D8E7; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 05:28:33 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Revisiting GLEP 81 (acct-*) policies (reviews, cross-distro syncing) From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 06:28:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <84a435bffe460efd2620ceec0c0405fa18a7937b.camel@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-lE+Ze7bRxGtSyzz/LXJX" User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Archives-Salt: 31eeed0d-2a2a-4400-82d6-28911ccf50c7 X-Archives-Hash: d2e54cd86cfd2f6132d9ef9d6ee56c71 --=-lE+Ze7bRxGtSyzz/LXJX Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2019-12-09 at 13:48 -0800, Alec Warner wrote: > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 12:17 AM Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: >=20 > > Hello, > >=20 > > I think the policies proposed in GLEP 81 [1] were overenthusiastic > > and they don't stand collision with sad Gentoo developer reality. > > Instead of improving the quality of resulting packages, they rather > > hamper their adoption and cause growing frustration. > >=20 > > The problems I see today are: > >=20 > >=20 > > 1. Mailing list reviews hamper the adoption of new user packages. > >=20 > > Firstly, there are a few developers who obstructively refuse to > > communicate with others and especially to use the public mailing lists. > > While this is a separate problem, and a problem that needs to be > > resolved, this GLEP can't resolve it. Of course, there is no reason to > > believe that removing review requirement will actually make them migrat= e > > their packages but it's at least one obstacle out of the way. > >=20 > > Secondly, even developers capable of communication find the two stage > > request-wait-commit workflow inconvenient. At any time, there are > > at least a few requests waiting for being committed, possibly with > > the developers forgetting about them. > >=20 > >=20 > > 2. Mailing list reviews don't serve their original purpose. > >=20 > > The original purpose of mailing list reviews was to verify that > > the developers use new packages correctly. For example, Michael > > Orlitzky has found a lot of unnecessary home directories specified. > > Of course, that works only if people submit *ebuilds* for review. > >=20 > > However, at some points developers arbitrarily decided to send only > > numbers for review. This defeats the purpose of the review in the firs= t > > place. > >=20 > >=20 > > 3. Cross-distro syncing has no purpose. > >=20 > > One of the original ideas was to reuse UID/GID numbers from other > > distros when available to improve sync. However, given the collisions > > between old Gentoo UIDs and other distros, other distros themselves, > > non-overlapping user/group names, etc. there seems to be little reason > > to actually do it. If we even managed some overlap, it would be minima= l > > and quasi-random. > >=20 > > While other distros provide a cheap way of choosing new UID/GID, it > > doesn't seem that many people actually use it. Then we hit pretty > > absurd situations when someone chooses one UID/GID, somebody else tells > > him to use the one from other distro. > >=20 > >=20 > > 4. Assignment mechanism is not collision-prone. > >=20 > > The secondary goal of mailing list reviews is to prevent UID/GID > > collisions. Sadly, it doesn't work there either. Sometimes two people > > request the same UID/GID, and only sometimes somebody else notices. > > In the end, people have hard time figuring out which number is the 'nex= t > > free', sometimes they discover the number's been taken when somebody > > else commits it first. > >=20 > >=20 > > All that considered, I'd like to open discussion how we could improve > > things. > >=20 > > My proposal would be to: > >=20 > > a. split the UID/GID range into 'high' (app) and 'low' (system) > > assignments, 'high' being >=3D100 and 'low' <100 (matching Apache suEXE= C > > defaults), > >=20 > > b. UIDs/GIDs in the 'high' range can be taken arbitrarily (recommending > > taking highest free), while in the 'low' range must be approved by QA, > >=20 > > c. no review requirement for the 'high' range, just choose your UID/GID > > straight of uid-gid.txt and commit it. > >=20 >=20 > What is the mechanism to keep the uid-gid.txt aligned with tree content? = is > there a CI check that says I am using the new acct-* eclasses AND I have = a > UID / GID assigned that is not matching uid-gid.txt? I see the CI has > "ConflictingAccountIdentifiers", is this already doing this work (checkin= g > that the ebuild matchines uid-gid.txt), or just scanning the whole tree a= nd > ensuring that 2 packages don't re-use the same ID? >=20 The latter. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --=-lE+Ze7bRxGtSyzz/LXJX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGTBAABCgB9FiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAl3vLP1fFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEM3 NkE4NDUwOTQwOThEMjhDQzhCMjZDNTYzOUFEQUUyMzI5RTI0MEUACgkQY5ra4jKe JA4qCggArZI0E/ODbOm7twBWPF9GgGVR9IKtzHzeiD+Ir33QLshDDHsYQ1wNgim8 rQbPB3B6N1NSi8+O6blLOPu6I0Dlyd/27mpsXP8dX6Kg+zOQYe+Yonj5jwhSjC3H lNNW700TqBCphZiJAwVda8zLXBDQUCtSjh2i9Ze6gprs5pxG3w0Yb3oWZnb/FgM/ TYoph2aa9ukXqFj+lHlnpPsYrmE+EdTCjjC9u3xFLdTAwQvfuSYH+8d1e4iiy7pg SrWgeqCI0FDe2wZSjIGBuQc6r6HuiBZxdD5SuZUmVrFvGZrMsMOBl1yE0h80K3Qn 81DwuY4t7f8QgGxz8MONx/kZoM6a3g== =X3Gq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-lE+Ze7bRxGtSyzz/LXJX--