On 02/23/19 16:16, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 2019-02-23 at 15:39 -0500, desultory wrote: >> On 02/23/19 02:17, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 20:58 -0600, Matthew Thode wrote: >>>> On 19-02-19 22:05:02, Brian Dolbec wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 23:03:51 -0600 >>>>> Matthew Thode <prometheanf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 19-02-20 00:00:04, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/19/19 11:21 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What problem would this solve? (Is adding gentoo-keys to @system >>>>>>>>> the least bad way to solve it?) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It'd allow the stage tarballs (3,4) to use webrsync-gpg to verify >>>>>>>> portage tarballs. This is useful for the initial sync (as called >>>>>>>> out in our manual). Otherwise using emerge-webrsync could be >>>>>>>> mitm'd or otherwise messed with. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ok, then I agree with the goal if not the solution. This is a >>>>>>> portage-specific thing, namely >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FEATURES=webrsync-gpg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> that should be enabled by default on a stage3. (Making new users go >>>>>>> out of their way to add basic security is daft.) Portage already has >>>>>>> USE=rsync-verify, and I think we could either >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a) expand the meaning of that flag to include enabling >>>>>>> webrsync-gpg by default, and to pull in gentoo-keys; or >>>>>>> >>>>>>> b) add another (default-on) flag like USE=webrsync-verify to do it >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That flag would be enabled by default, so gentoo-keys would be >>>>>>> pulled in as part of @system without actually being *in* the >>>>>>> @system. Something along those lines would achieve the same goal in >>>>>>> a cleaner way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This worksforme (optional, default enabled dep of portage with a >>>>>> default feature flag change). >>>>>> >>>>>>>> As far how we treat deps of @system packages, since this does not >>>>>>>> have any deps that should help check that box for anyone >>>>>>>> worried. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I meant the other way around. Once gentoo-keys is in @system, >>>>>>> packages will (inconsistently) omit gentoo-keys from (R)DEPEND. >>>>>>> There's no real policy or consensus on the matter, and it makes it >>>>>>> a real PITA if we ever want to remove things from @system, because >>>>>>> lots of packages will break in unpredictable ways. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, ya, that makes sense. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One of the things that releng has bantered about the last few years is >>>>> making a stage4 with these extra non @system pkgs. The stage4 would >>>>> allow all the extra pkgs needed for new installs without adding to >>>>> @system. The system set could possibly be trimmed a little more then >>>>> too. Then knowledgeable users could work with minimal stage3's when it >>>>> suits their purpose while new users doing installs get the advantage of >>>>> the additional pre-installed pkgs. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ok, after setting that up portage wants to update pgp keys, which fail >>>> because keyservers suck. It doesn't look like we can change the >>>> keyservers or disable the update entirely but we can set the retries to >>>> 0 (which better disable it...). Robbat2 had a patch to allow disabling >>>> the update but it doesn't look like it was applied. >>>> >>> >>> Disabling that means entirely killing the verification as it'd happily >>> use a revoked key. >>> >>> Keyservers were supposed not to suck anymore. Are you sure it's not >>> misconfigured network? Maybe it's got broken-but-pretended IPv6? >>> >> >> Given the ongoing volume of issues with this same area that have been >> reported on the forums (and elsewhere), including by people whom I know >> to be competent network administrators, it seems distinctly unlikely >> that all of the issues come down to networking configuration errors. >> Especially as the posited networking issues appear to affect nothing else. >> > > Yet instead of actually reporting bugs, talking to keyserver people > and providing information that could help resolve the issue... let me > guess, forum people instead share workarounds on how to kill security > in their Gentoo and complain between themselves. Months later, someone > passes the complaints over to the ml as a side remark in some semi- > related thread, of course without caring to actually provide any helpful > data. > Last I checked, forcing users to file bug reports was, at best, impractical; encouraging them to has been as much as we can realistically do. Not that such bugs have not been filed, as you well know.
As for "talking to keyserver people", for one thing most users do not even know how to find the right parties to contact, and even when they do or are directed to them reporting "you had downtime, please fix it" seems distinctly pointless if the administrators are paying any attention at all to their services, and rather moreso if they aren't. Workarounds are about as much as one can do when they cannot access otherwise required services to perform updates. The best available approach left to users is keeping the workarounds in place for the minimum amount of time to do the work that they need to get done. I had thought that directly replying to the maintainer without side commentary did not count as "a side remark in some semi-related thread". As for the timing and context, I have recently been (incorrectly) told that the forums project is "isolationist" and thus have decided to make an effort to dispel such false claims by more actively participating in other media, despite forums being my primary area of responsibility; and did not (and still do not) see a need to compile a list of reports when, presumably, your search engine of choice would suffice to find them by the dozen. Further, you are CC:ed on and have commented on related and as yet unresolved bugs, so this should hardly be new information to you. So, please, do kindly leave handwaving, strawmen, and appeals to ridicule out of technical discussion, they serve no useful purpose.
