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 20D68138334 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:34:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 43533E0867; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:34:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (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 DB345E03EC for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:34:31 +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 29ECF34D606; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:34:29 +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 14:34:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: <6f1dc9b3-e13e-1186-f75a-51615db505d3@gentoo.org> References: <84a435bffe460efd2620ceec0c0405fa18a7937b.camel@gentoo.org> <6f1dc9b3-e13e-1186-f75a-51615db505d3@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-qvFiV4PYEsGcH1BVCOcm" 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: 1d7888f4-2d67-437f-930f-51208fb7db46 X-Archives-Hash: ebe72a48776dc0fbd4778524b9f5d185 --=-qvFiV4PYEsGcH1BVCOcm Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 07:44 +0200, Joonas Niilola wrote: > Hey, >=20 > On 12/9/19 10:17 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > Hello, > >=20 > > I think the policies proposed in GLEP 81 [1] were overenthusiastic > > and they don't stand collision with sad Gentoo developer reality.=20 > > 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 > > 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 > The problem: There is still no any official documentation about using > acct-, and reviewing it was/is pretty much left on the shoulders of one > man. It's easy to say on hindsight it was implemented too quickly. There is official documentation in devmanual [1]. > >=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 > If I remember correctly, at one point it was agreed not to paste ebuilds > because they all just looked similar, but just ask for IDs? I wouldn't call it 'agreed'. Someone said something, people stopped doing. Nobody bothered updating the policy (in GLEP 81, the rationale explains it [2]). > > 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 > > d. strong recommendation to use matching UID/GID for the same user/grou= p > > name. > >=20 > > WDYT? > >=20 > >=20 > > [1] https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0081.html >=20 > I think none of the above really prevent collisions for unmotivated > people. They also still require manual update of uid-gid.txt, and it > can't be expected everyone does it. Now this is not of a big interest to > devs, but I believe committing non-dev acct's will get hard here, > because there might be some "lag" with their contributions vrt. the > current situation. >=20 Hence my idea that if we stop requiring mailing list RFC, we can replace that with obligatory update to uid-gid.txt. It should work good enough for synchronization. [1] https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/users-and-groups/index.html [2] https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0081.html#requiring-mailing-list-rfc --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --=-qvFiV4PYEsGcH1BVCOcm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGTBAABCgB9FiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAl3vnuJfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEM3 NkE4NDUwOTQwOThEMjhDQzhCMjZDNTYzOUFEQUUyMzI5RTI0MEUACgkQY5ra4jKe JA4sWggAzM2rpFXTbKLQkOvK1uk7ctVm8IuSInsatTuh1vBV9CFLgxf7aXjhW0de jdfa4YekqjHV9eeJMsIyOlGC/USiTT2rNq74FnCWIa1MvD0rnzWE/ysPH6eocYjR VAFAsK2Ysubna1u3uhoFi4ewb4HRYAcGkPrOqyojNk/a/rXjYzoL8PHETmwQ2e8U l39DmoHYTnQZU4ZIg1+KFGHAf9+2boGrfyLX6S4kqEOTrWXA8T1BUu8vXCSFTA+l S4/dmyoEXJ/2OD0GmVt4xn04BLldoHcqn1L5RUN5OLDciaUDWgZKg2fL3MHicnpl K09w6UeC2gOQBScaq3ccJVSA5sOJ/A== =B6Xz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-qvFiV4PYEsGcH1BVCOcm--