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

Re: Why not to let all DDs to execute "gb"-command



* Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> [2013-06-07 12:26:37 +0200]:

> On 2013-06-06 21:42, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> >Well, I don't think adding more kruft to dak is a great idea (I
> >mean, if
> >it has to happen, it has to happen), but this really shows that we need
> >a unified way of passing machine-readable messages between services.
> >
> >Let's see how the GSoC project turns out; I'm willing to bet even a
> >proof of concept would be useful to services that interdepend so
> >closely.
> >
> >I mean, not to play the "UNIX" card, but one thing well, you know?
> >Let's
> >just aid in the code talking to each other better.
> 
> Oh yeah, if you give us secure and reliable(!) messaging over
> unreliable and untrusted networks, in way that DSA accepts, I would
> be very happy. ;-)

Hi,

Secure should be pretty straightforward as every message is already
cryptographically signed. I think most of the work (save from packaging) will
be on the reliability side, as Fedora's infrastructure is more tightly
integrated than ours.

The "accepted by DSA part" is a bit complicated. We didn't really want to
bother one of the busiest teams in Debian when the software wasn't even
packaged, and, when it came up, I felt that the reception of the idea of
using fedmsg was a bit lukewarm. I think we should be able to work things out
when and if we have a working proof of concept.

> [snip]

Cheers,
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont

BOFH excuse #88:
Boss' kid fucked up the machine

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: