2008/6/24 Chris Ridd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 19 Jun 2008, at 08:32, Venky wrote: > >> Some concerns about this process. I love the fact that the barrier >> to entry is so low. But this also means that it would be trivial to >> submit a package with a rootkit or a backdoor and have it hosted on >> opensolaris.org. >> >> I find third-party contributors directly submitting binaries a scary >> prospect. The best option, IMO, would be to have them submit >> patches and build recipes (which are much more easily vetted) and >> have the actual build carried out by the /contrib project. Going >> the SFE way would seem to be the best option for this. > > Would requiring that all ELF binaries be signed (noting the recent > elfsign thread) mitigate your concerns? Obviously they only tell you > who provided the bad binaries in the first place, and it wouldn't help > at all with dangerous scripts. > > Having a build recipe seems safer though. This would make the contrib > repository a bit like the ports systems on other OSes (eg FreeBSD, > MacPorts, Gentoo, etc.)
As long as there is an audit trail, I think it is perfectly acceptable to allow direct third-party contributions. Whether published packages should get "approved" by a contrib project member before being available is another story. I do not believe that contrib project members should have to be responsible for building everything (again). I don't believe such a model will scale very well. -- Shawn Walker _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
