On 05/07/2016 15:07, james wrote: > On 07/05/2016 06:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Aaron Bauman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The subject of this particular mailing list post is a little alarming >>> and >>> over reactive. We are not running around p.masking everyone's >>> packages, but >>> issues that have been outstanding for years often result in such >>> courses of >>> action. I personally told Anthony I should have requested his >>> assistance >>> initially on the matter, and I do apologize for that. He is an active >>> developer who would respond in a timely manner. So once again, I do >>> apologize. >> >> Thanks, and my intent wasn't to suggest that I thought there was any >> kind of a trend here. I just wanted to agree that this shouldn't be >> how it happens. It sounds like we're already on the same page, which >> isn't surprising since this was the first complaint I've heard in a >> while. >> >>> Finally, that does not dissolve the developer of providing usable, >>> substantiated, and verifiable information regarding the vulnerabilities. >>> The idea that a developer gets to choose whether or not they do so >>> should >>> not be considered. >> >> Also agree. I think we need to have a reasonable security policy, but >> clearly there can't be unresolved questions about whether a particular >> package-version is vulnerable or not. If we don't get a question like >> that resolved in a timely manner then the version should be masked. >> Users can then make an informed decision as to whether they want to >> take the risk in unmasking it. >> >> Our security policies are a tree-wide QA commitment that our users >> rely on. We shouldn't advertise a security policy that we aren't >> willing to enforce. > > As an old C hack, and user of gentoo for over a decade, I understand the > positions being articulated herein. However, I think there is a > fundamental perspective that is missing, so I shall attempt to > illuminate that perspective. 'C' is still a magical and most important > language. It is the transitive language between large, complicated > systems, and hardware. Like it or not, without hardware, there are no > systems. > > There are many new and modern languages with wonderful features. I get > that, and appreciated that they are needed and desired. But modern > (security and usefulness) metrics are being applied to old codes that > are useful for a variety of reasons, beyond compiling them and using them. > > There is an intersection between minimal unix (minimal gentoo in our > case) and embedded systems. Docker, many would cite as the leader in > commercial container deployments, has realized that minimal is better, > faster, easier to secure and can always be 'scaled up' by adding more > codes (hence they subsumed Alpine Linux). > > Gentoo has a rich, legacy in old, simpler codes that bridge embedded > linux to (bloated/full-featured) linux. Those old codes that appear to > many as useless, indeed form a narrow bridge to both the past and the > logic/tricks/methods to get various types of hardware working in a > minimal or embedded environment. They are often 'single function' codes > without the complexity of a gui or bloated formations. They are easy to > read and with a CLI focus, allow a developer to see how some things > work. Those old codes, folks are quick to purge now, often contain > logical information on how to talk to hardware. (think ethernet for one). > > > So when we had 'the attic' I was fine with codes being purged by > whomever. There is no easy to use equivalent in github (and believe me, > I'm a noooooob at github), so I have much anxiety about what, from my > perspective, appears to be needless purging of many old codes. I have no > problem with removal from the official tree, but I'd like to keep them > around, regardless of any security, brokeness or un-maintained status. I > completely OK with tree-cleaning, just a soon as the ink dries on the > new wiki pages that guarantee archival of old codes. Security, is > important, but not the main issue from my perspective. Maintenance of > old codes, particularly written in C and related to hardware or logic of > minimal systems, is keenly important to me. If gentoo remains 'a good > stuart' of these codes, it just another mechanism > to distinguish our distro, imho. > > So I would ask (beg if necessary) the kind folks that are the gentoo > devs to figure out a way to archive those old codes, and document how to > retrieve them, via github, as the attic too is probably like sunrise and > such, headed towards deprecation and the chopping block.....
s/github/git/g Big difference. Gentoo's tree is not hosted on github, and infra isn't going to put an attic equivalent there. -- Alan McKinnon [email protected]
