On 12/07/2011 06:20 PM, Denis Arnaud wrote:
As a side note, rather than using Snap (and Augeas, and...), we (in my
department) tend to prefer Chef (http://www.opscode.com/chef/), which
has got a broader scope, and allows much more complex configurations
and automation tasks.
Denis
Chef,
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 15:25:18 -0800
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Well, yes, but only because you shifted the entire terms of the thread
without telling anyone else. All of the above - about how the idea was
to build packages with untrusted build dependencies in trustworthy
On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 12:33 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
I answered Denis immediately at the first post and he concurred it was
a problem. I like to think the conversation evolved as we discussed.
It's probably not worth pursuing this much further, but I'd just note
that the specific sub-thread I
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 12:33:38 -0500
From: seth vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org
I answered Denis immediately at the first post and he concurred it was
a problem. I like to think the conversation evolved as we discussed.
Yes, the conversation has shifted... Indeed, I mixed two distinct
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Denis Arnaud
denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org wrote:
Hello,
RedHat-hosted Koji servers offer an invaluable service by allowing all of
us, package maintainers, to build all of our Fedora packages. I guess that
that infrastructure is not cost-less for RedHat and and
On 12/07/2011 02:46 PM, Denis Arnaud wrote:
Hello,
RedHat-hosted Koji servers offer an invaluable service by allowing all
of us, package maintainers, to build all of our Fedora packages. I
guess that that infrastructure is not cost-less for RedHat and and the
quality of service is great
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:46:18 +0100
Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org wrote:
Hello,
RedHat-hosted Koji servers offer an invaluable service by allowing
all of us, package maintainers, to build all of our Fedora
packages. I guess that that infrastructure is not cost-less for
RedHat and
2011/12/7 seth vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org
I've looked into spawning virt instances to do building and it is pretty
doable. The problem with them being offered by volunteers is trust
[...]
You are right. I had not thought at that... how naive of me :(
The volunteers/trustees would sign
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 18:31:27 +0100
Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org wrote:
2011/12/7 seth vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org
I've looked into spawning virt instances to do building and it is
pretty doable. The problem with them being offered by volunteers is
trust [...]
You are
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:35:03 -0500
Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/07/2011 01:25 PM, seth vidal wrote:
That would be very cool. Do you intend to use DeltaCloud (
http://deltacloud.apache.org/), or something like that?
I'm using libcloud, actually. I'm interested in
Le mercredi 07 décembre 2011 à 10:36 -0500, seth vidal a écrit :
I've looked into spawning virt instances to do building and it is
pretty doable. The problem with them being offered by volunteers is
trust:
1. how do we trust the initial installation hasn't been poisoned unless
we ship all
On 12/07/2011 01:40 PM, seth vidal wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:35:03 -0500
Mo Morsimmo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/07/2011 01:25 PM, seth vidal wrote:
That would be very cool. Do you intend to use DeltaCloud (
http://deltacloud.apache.org/), or something like that?
I'm
On 12/07/2011 01:25 PM, seth vidal wrote:
That would be very cool. Do you intend to use DeltaCloud (
http://deltacloud.apache.org/), or something like that?
I'm using libcloud, actually. I'm interested in pursuing this in
python, not ruby.
Deltacloud's primary interface is REST
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 04:34:57 +0900
夜神 岩男 supergiantpot...@yahoo.co.jp wrote:
An idea just struck me that may work.
If the system is made light enough that it is utterly painless for
anyone to contribute processing time then cross-checking of hashes
could be made statistically secure, save
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 15:02:42 -0500
Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
On 12/07/2011 01:25 PM, seth vidal wrote:
If I were going to use random vm's I'd want to:
1. connect using ssh
2. push over my own rpm/python/etc binaries
3. checksum all the rest of the installed
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 05:35:02 +0900
夜神 岩男 supergiantpot...@yahoo.co.jp wrote:
On 12/08/2011 05:12 AM, seth vidal wrote:
Bandwidth is the big concern for the end user here and then the
other issue is - is all of this worth it for building pkgs? I
don't think it is, personally, pkg building
On 12/08/2011 05:12 AM, seth vidal wrote:
Bandwidth is the big concern for the end user here and then the other
issue is - is all of this worth it for building pkgs? I don't think it
is, personally, pkg building is not that huge of a hit, afaict to
getting things done.
I mean the sum total
An idea just struck me that may work.
If the system is made light enough that it is utterly painless for
anyone to contribute processing time then cross-checking of hashes could
be made statistically secure, save for a widespread compromise of the
entire Fedora userbase.
For example, if I
On 12/07/2011 01:25 PM, seth vidal wrote:
If I were going to use random vm's I'd want to:
1. connect using ssh
2. push over my own rpm/python/etc binaries
3. checksum all the rest of the installed (and running) software
4. verify those checksums versus my known good set
5. THEN push over
2011/12/7 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net
Concerning trust, the classic way it has been solved before (by seti…)
is to farm the same build to several independant nodes, cheksum results
and make sure they all agree
Again, we could use that P2P build system just to alleviate the
On Wed, 2011-12-07 at 18:12 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:25:28 -0800
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
I'm not sure we can treat scratch / personal builds with *quite* so
much abandon. They're still valuable targets for anyone trying to
compromise Fedora,
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:25:28 -0800
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
I'm not sure we can treat scratch / personal builds with *quite* so
much abandon. They're still valuable targets for anyone trying to
compromise Fedora, after all.
I don't think you understand - we need to be able
On Wed, 2011-12-07 at 16:15 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 15:02:42 -0500
Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
On 12/07/2011 01:25 PM, seth vidal wrote:
If I were going to use random vm's I'd want to:
1. connect using ssh
2. push over my own
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:01:06 +0100
From: Richard Marko rma...@redhat.com
I'm currently writing a proposal of similar architecture for testing
purposes. Looks like the core -- community provided virtual machines is
the common component for all this stuff so if designed correctly it can
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:12 AM, seth vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Bandwidth is the big concern for the end user here and then the other
issue is - is all of this worth it for building pkgs? I don't think it
is, personally, pkg building is not that huge of a hit, afaict to
getting
On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 03:25:18PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-12-07 at 18:12 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:25:28 -0800
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
I'm not sure we can treat scratch / personal builds with *quite* so
much abandon.
26 matches
Mail list logo
