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 65E5F138334 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 02:16:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0AC04E083B; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 02:16:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vk0-x243.google.com (mail-vk0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::243]) (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 A8888E0827 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 02:16:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-x243.google.com with SMTP id q135-v6so4874994vkh.1 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 19:16:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=scriptkitty-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=cFaEBNNHdsFjH85J27vm7PF1xnG4HCmuYa+LYi/f3K4=; b=0fSGjzasBbL+dcFqTjXWn7EDZMLGFjnC2etQZYzw3lqNHvBhiSsoocFeZ3ciUm6sWo 38W591E5sVj2yMpux/8RSUOJ34KFw09YtHZZmADPrqGTh75zu03F3pSQ5OAOICsvO/DD pDenSOmnqmPNUEKPsUZwDvcR1kqXinoxaDh5Sdmc17/8iEvXLt8A/3VIDt4H8X66sD7O RwZWlcERuUvt+eiNhEc9hBYbuQWtnyb+sd0+yYkwBdA8hjY2prdyOj4vHmfu5XLfF884 yWW9UC6r1JSVpmWz6JuM0StbRnZzwMHHoFcPkNtTztljrXAR//2EzlxykPvZhmVEtRry j1qA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=cFaEBNNHdsFjH85J27vm7PF1xnG4HCmuYa+LYi/f3K4=; b=jKdDFNqPXd2sYCBzh8wfedZvWY/GDmAdn5Y9RYtOw01mKea78RWGqZ8LwH5OTl+xQN DNsMVABMNv1KN4g/+6tKt4P/qTKeeWGldK0uk1KlunoFK+qGLkKb64lboyo0UATY/sCk QpRt8aijKp99w7iHhkI5a7HtBei7rHjcpnsQLz90yZ07Z7m/QU3jk831RPRSwv0jY/E5 P5pwBJEuhspMeGk6rgGj3lqGzNs2bR6hgfj5MV2Xm5D/lmjymfkBpXE7kYIJbPO8Gvd7 jwuO0npW+YNGEupggQcBssT+jhPL/ahqopf2zko6ySTvbK2b4sOOkhfgTMTL4ylHXg8X UhSQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2YqLZTdKhXE4XIm1Ogb5UEde5HrT+SDlRln1auJ/wmVmn86Svb OywONmtvCDmV08lN89Exz9IaAIXgkKuMRKUErIdR2Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIUTA1SSkSeESRoSGyHyqh7EFbD8ZqkvhNxRVJWGmh92h51ybGYvf06+Kw/FR8vYfzYHB4Cx97zN+fGI5t4Pt4= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:374b:: with SMTP id e72-v6mr2906282vka.155.1529029007265; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 19:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com Received: by 2002:ab0:4803:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 19:16:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [68.129.209.49] In-Reply-To: References: <1528529135.1261.34.camel@gentoo.org> <23323.34479.67401.2943@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <1528530763.1261.36.camel@gentoo.org> <20180614104751.120ab2f3@red.yakaraplc.local> From: Alec Warner Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 22:16:46 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: s90GauhPBfjVc49zJYsp4qQwbZs Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Repo mirror & CI: official statement wrt GitHub To: gentoo-project Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d46b37056ea4ce75" X-Archives-Salt: 4905540d-bfe5-4127-bc26-ef50199880bb X-Archives-Hash: 481f44ba9307906a211ba731e5cb5bef --000000000000d46b37056ea4ce75 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2018-06-14 16:14, Alec Warner wrote: > > They seem to offer docker packages, so we could just nab those and run > > them in containers on hosts. I'm not too keen on doing a bunch of > > (really what I consider busywork) to try to 'get it working on Gentoo.' > > We already use upstream provided containers and I expect that to > > continue as upstreams continue to abandon the 'release packages' model > > and move to 'release sets of containers' model. > > Huh? Is this the Gentoo-way? I hope not! :( > > No, I really hope something like that will never happen. Like I hope we > will never see the attempt to add "FLATPAK", "Snap"... to the official > Gentoo repository. > I think you will find that vendors who offer fairly complex applications will continue to focus on vertically integrated solutions (e.g. containers) because its cheaper (build once run anywhere) and scalable (you don't need to maintain N packages, for N distros.) I won't comment on what the "Gentoo" way is (because there are dozens of us and we don't all agree) but as a human trying to deploy these sorts of services; I don't see much point in packaging them when upstream offers a container deployment. Given the dozens of hours I could spend trying to write ebuilds for all of the bundled stuff vs deploying the container..I'm going to deploy the container most of the time precisely because I don't need the 'gentoo customized build', particularly when containers offer isolation boundaries between the application runtime and my system runtime. Obviously containers have their own customization challenges (but also provide layers of isolation where extreme customization is lower priority than 10 years ago) and also present interesting security challenges (how do you keep up to date, you cannot use more traditional security tools) but I suspect organizations can adapt to the former and the industry will provide for the latter at some point. -A > > -- > Regards, > Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer > C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 > > --000000000000d46b37056ea4ce75 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Thomas Deutschmann &= lt;whissi@gentoo.org= > wrote:
O= n 2018-06-14 16:14, Alec Warner wrote:
> They seem to offer docker packages, so we could just nab those and run=
> them in containers on hosts. I'm not too keen on doing a bunch of<= br> > (really what I consider busywork) to try to 'get it working on Gen= too.'
> We already use upstream provided containers and I expect that to
> continue as upstreams continue to abandon the 'release packages= 9; model
> and move to 'release sets of containers' model.

Huh? Is this the Gentoo-way? I hope not! :(

No, I really hope something like that will never happen. Like I hope we
will never see the attempt to add "FLATPAK", "Snap"... = to the official
Gentoo repository.

I think you will fin= d that vendors who offer fairly complex applications will continue to focus= on vertically integrated solutions
(e.g. containers) because its= cheaper (build once run anywhere) and scalable (you don't need to main= tain N packages, for N distros.)

I won't comme= nt on what the "Gentoo" way is (because there are dozens of us an= d we don't all agree) but as a human trying to deploy these sorts of se= rvices; I don't see much point in packaging them when upstream offers a= container deployment. Given the dozens of hours I could spend trying to wr= ite ebuilds for all of the bundled stuff vs deploying the container..I'= m going to deploy the container most of the time precisely because I don= 9;t need the 'gentoo customized build', particularly when container= s offer isolation boundaries between the application runtime and my system = runtime.

Obviously containers have their own custo= mization challenges (but also provide layers of isolation where extreme cus= tomization is lower priority than 10 years ago) and also present interestin= g security challenges (how do you keep up to date, you cannot use more trad= itional security tools) but I suspect organizations can adapt to the former= and the industry will provide for the latter at some point.

=
-A



--
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5


--000000000000d46b37056ea4ce75--