On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 20:05, Victor wrote: Hi Victor,
Since the machine in question is available at the moment, I volunteer for the test builds (with a pre-release or as soon as 1.3 goes gold).
Will this be a public machine for CLC people where we might be able to test our ports? Or is public access unavailable? One problem I always had was that I don't update right away since my boxes are usually in use and it takes a while for me to take them down. A publicly available box would be good to test things.
I know due to security risks and people being bad, such things are rarely available, so if you can allow access, cool, if not, no biggie..
I'd prefer to keep the machine private for the moment. Honestly I think that exposing a public CRUX machine to the net 24/7 would be a high security risk, given my poor security knowledge. The idea of a public test machine is very interesting (I think Sourceforge provides something similar, with some more popular distro as a build environment to test projects).
This might be a good reason to research more ideas for allowing building of ports without being root. Would allow a central box for people to test ports and not require sudo or root to do so. Unfortunately, as Per said, it's difficult to find a generic solution.
This could solve the problem only partially. User account could be enough to compromise the machine (as in Debian servers recently rooted exploiting a kernel vuln).
Personally, I think our ports are the best thing we have and also somewhat bad... We're missing features, such as post/pre scripts and built-in dependencies. I know that prt-get now does most of these things and if so, why not just integrate the tools? Make prt-get be the default build tool instead of having all these different tools? Wouldn't it be easier? Just a thought.
Victor
I suggested prt-get to be included as a default tool some time ago, maybe adding a section in the CRUX Handbook. Also pre/post install scripts could be a nice feature. I sometimes feel there's something missing with the current way we manage ports, but keep in mind most users love CRUX *because* it lacks such features. That said I'd be personally happy with a stricter standardization of ports (deps, url, whatever), but I feel most CRUX users do prefer the current, simpler way. Regards, Simone