On Mon, 2019-12-09 at 13:48 -0800, Alec Warner wrote: > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 12:17 AM Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > 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. > > > > The problems I see today are: > > > > > > 1. Mailing list reviews hamper the adoption of new user packages. > > > > 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 migrate > > their packages but it's at least one obstacle out of the way. > > > > 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. > > > > > > 2. Mailing list reviews don't serve their original purpose. > > > > 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. > > > > However, at some points developers arbitrarily decided to send only > > numbers for review. This defeats the purpose of the review in the first > > place. > > > > > > 3. Cross-distro syncing has no purpose. > > > > 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 minimal > > and quasi-random. > > > > 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. > > > > > > 4. Assignment mechanism is not collision-prone. > > > > 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 'next > > free', sometimes they discover the number's been taken when somebody > > else commits it first. > > > > > > All that considered, I'd like to open discussion how we could improve > > things. > > > > My proposal would be to: > > > > a. split the UID/GID range into 'high' (app) and 'low' (system) > > assignments, 'high' being >=100 and 'low' <100 (matching Apache suEXEC > > defaults), > > > > 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, > > > > c. no review requirement for the 'high' range, just choose your UID/GID > > straight of uid-gid.txt and commit it. > > > > 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 (checking > that the ebuild matchines uid-gid.txt), or just scanning the whole tree and > ensuring that 2 packages don't re-use the same ID? >
The latter. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
