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

Re: Script to determinate packages wich need comaintainership

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 14:54 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi (a badger gmail com) said: 
> > A) cvs ACL system that understands groups.  c4chris sent a patch that
> > should do this for the current code.  I'll take another look at this and
> > apply it.  It shouldn't actually do anything until we do the rest of the
> > steps.
> > B) a new group who's acl allows them to checkout/connect to the cvs
> > server but not commit.
> > C) Modification to our acl generating scripts to output the group
> > definitions and new acls based on them.  Something like:
> > D) Upstream will need to have an account in the FAS. [*]_
> > 
> > 1:  [all packages] | [anyone] | deny
> > 2:  [all packages] | @cvsadmin | allow
> > 3:  [packages with no current policy] | @cvsextras | allow
> > 4:  [packages with policy] | user1,user2,user3 | allow
> > 
> > Notice that this definition does not include the new group anywhere.  A
> > user in the new group only gains access by being explicitly listed on a
> > line like #4.
> Will still fail without either filesystem level ACLs or permission
> changes due to being unable to write to the rawh files. Unless I'm
> misreading?

I haven't mucked with cvs repositories in a while so you could be right.
If I'm reading the code and the repository correctly, things should work
if we change the filesystem group from cvsextras to a new group like
"cvsuser" and add everyone in that group, right?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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