[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: FAKE: Fedora Extras shipped popular package with rootkit and more than ten thousands systems were infected (was Re: Summary from last weeks FESCo meeting)



Am Donnerstag, den 01.06.2006, 19:26 +0300 schrieb Ville Skyttä:
> On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 17:00 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 01.06.2006, 15:41 +0100 schrieb Jonathan Underwood:
> > >  This discussion would also be useful in the
> > > context of developing a mechanism for having a team of people
> > > responsible for a package, rather than a single owner.
> > We really need that. But that's stalled mostly because nobody in FESCo
> > really works on driving it forward and the proposal from Patrice is
> > still in my Todo-Inbox. :-((
> This topic surfaces every now and then, often to be quickly countered
> with "what do you need, just do it", which to my knowledge has not been
> really answered.  Come on, what is there really to "drive forward" in
> this?

Mainly this (or parts of it; or parts now, others later):

- Allow new contributors to start as Co-Maintainers:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-May/msg00506.html

- Proposal from Patrice with a lot of good ideas:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-April/msg00962.html

- a way to mark "Maintainer foo works on FC5 and devel, Maintainer bar
on FC3 and FC4" in owners.list

- A proper policy in the wiki.

Did I miss anything?

> Just agree with the current maintainer of a package that you'll start
> co-maintaining it, and add your email address to initialcclist in
> owners.list, and start doing it.

Well, that's one part of the whole idea it and that's possible already.

> > >  Do the problems
> > > with the apprach alluded to by Konstantin have their roots in the
> > > limitations of CVS permissions, or are there other issues?
> > I don't know. It was started with the current scheme and I don't know
> > the details why every packager has access everywhere. And it seems a lot
> > of people don't want fine-graded ACLs. 
> 
> CVS ACLs are already deployed, but they're not currently fine grained at
> all.  It should be possible to get them to be as fine grained as the
> requirements are, but I guess maintaining them for a project like FE
> (number of committers, number of packages) manually probably isn't fun
> at all.
>
> OTOH, some parts of the ACLs could be autogenerated from other sources,
> such as allowing commit access to owners.list to a restricted group
> only, and generating per-package ACLs from it + something that maps
> bugzilla accounts to CVS accounts.
> 
> Also, providing broader commit access for the security response team
> should be a no-brainer.

Sounds really good to me. BTW, I'd say sponsors should also get access
everywhere. But the scripts need to be written and somebody has to do
the work.

If we could fix the CTRL+C problem also I would be mostly satisfied. 

Cu
thl
-- 
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info>


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]