Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] restricting access to important spells

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mathieu L." <lejatorn AT smgl.homelinux.net>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] restricting access to important spells
  • Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:11:10 +0200

On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 09:27:50AM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> On Jul 13, seth AT swoolley.homeip.net [seth AT swoolley.homeip.net] wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 11:39:16AM +0200, Arjan Bouter wrote:
> > > In the last couple of weeks it happened a few times that important
> > > spells like linux-pam and shadow got broken by updated spells. Needless
> > > to say it's annoying when I've got to fix a spell just to be allowed
> > > access to my own box...
> > >
> > > Mathieu (lejatorn) and I were talking on #sourcemage about restricting
> > > access to certain important spells to
> > > component leads and a few selected devs chosen by those leads.
> > > We think anything related to boot/login should get on that list of
> > > spells.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts on this?
> >
> > How else will people learn?
> >
> > Why restrict it to a small group that has all the in-knowledge?
> >
> > Test grimoire is expected to break.
> >
> > How did they break it? Who broke it? Were they actually newbies?
> >
> > I think I'll need more evidence than "somebody broke test".
>
> What Seth said, with the addition that I'm looking at the IRC log of this
> conversation and I don't even see that you guys have a solid idea of spell
> changes that caused your problems.

So what?
it's exactly because I don't feel I have the skills to mess with init.d
spells for example that I don't do it and I don't know what happens in
these spells. So I don't see why I should know why it broke.
All I'm saying is that, yes I'm using test and I should expect trouble,
but it's not a good way to go that critical spells can be broken that
easily without us being warned.

I can't recall all the times I've seen alley_cat saying on IRC that last
glibc was completely broken and he had to work on it before it could
make it to test. And when it hit test, we were generally warned by mail
how it could break and why. And then Arwed was ready to fix stuff at the
minute it broke for us. That's exactly how I feel it should be done for
other critical spells like pam or init.

I'm not saying that only that dude and that other one should be allowed
to do this and that, but I'd feel way more comfortable if sensible
spells were monitored by a few responsible ppl. Even if that means
slowing down the update rate for those spells. And yeah you could get
started on "define responsible", but you know what I mean, as a small
community, we pretty much know who is skilled/responsible enough to
achieve what.

Anyways, those were just my two cents. I don't personnally feel
"threatened" by the way it is right now since I've always managed to fix
my system with more or less efforts, but I think it's a flaw in the way
we work, that's all.

I'm off for the wild, with no computer for the 3 days to come so I won't
be able to reply in the meanwhile.

Cheers,
Mathieu


--
If a function be advertised to return an error code in the event of
difficulties, thou shalt check for that code, yea, even though the
checks triple the size of thy code and produce aches in thy typing
fingers, for if thou thinkest "it cannot happen to me," the gods shall
surely punish thee for thy arrogance.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page