[clc-devel] Update scenario

Simone Rota sip at varlock.com
Tue Dec 2 20:52:05 UTC 2003


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






More information about the crux-devel mailing list