Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:30:02 +0100
From:      Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org>
To:        Daniel Engberg <daniel.engberg.lists@pyret.net>
Cc:        Tomoaki AOKI <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp>, Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>, Florian Smeets <flo@freebsd.org>, ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Proposed ports deprecation and removal policy
Message-ID:  <9D39E988-12D0-43E6-88C1-42D82326593D@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <2cfb2038d956813eefb068a8f61e1970@mail.infomaniak.com>
References:  <2cfb2038d956813eefb068a8f61e1970@mail.infomaniak.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


> On 14. Mar 2024, at 23:59, Daniel Engberg <daniel.engberg.lists@pyret.net>=
 wrote:
> =EF=BB=BFOn 2024-03-14T23:27:53.000+01:00, Tomoaki AOKI <junchoon@dec.saku=
ra.ne.jp> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 22:17:39 +0100
>> Daniel Engberg <daniel.engberg.lists@pyret.net> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>>   On 2024-03-14T21:49:46.000+01:00, Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org> w=
rote:
>>>>>        On 14. Mar 2024, at 21:38, Daniel Engberg <daniel.engberg.lists=
@pyret.net> wrote:
>>>>>     On 2024-03-12T15:15:49.000+01:00, Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbeinn=
et> wrote:
>>>>>>         12.03.2024 3:24, Daniel Engberg =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82=
:
>>>>>>     [skip]
>>>>>>>            Another possible option would be to add something to the p=
ort's matedata that makes pkg aware and easy notiable
>>>>>>>      like using a specific color for portname and related informatio=
n to signal
>>>>>>>      like if it's red it means abandonware and potentially reduced s=
ecurity.
>>>>>>     Of course, we need to inform users but not enforce. Tools, not po=
licy.
>>>>>      Eugene
>>>>>    Hi,
>>>>>    Given that we seem to agree on these points in general why should s=
uch ports still be kept in the tree? We don't have such tooling available an=
d it wont likely happen anytime soon. Because it's convenient for a committe=
r who uses these in a controlled network despite being potentially harmful f=
or others?
>>>>>    Just to be clear, I'm after where do we draw the line in general.
>>>>>    If we look at other distros in general based on availability the de=
cision seems to favour overall user security than "convenience". Given that w=
e have security policies etc in place I'd say that we in general are leaning=
 towards user security?
>>>>  So your proposal is to only have ports in the tree that are safe to ru=
n on unprotected public networks?
>>>  -m
>>> I'm asking if we should purposely support it despite the efforts of keep=
ing users safe.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Daniel
>>=20
>> How about setting NO_PACKAGE [1] to force admins to build from ports
>> by themselves for such risky but too usful to delete ports?
>>=20
>> You may also want to introduce something like LICENSE framework to
>> force interaction on build/install, but without something like
>> LICENSES_ACCEPTED+=3D variable to bypass it.
>>=20
>>=20
>> [1]
>> https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/special/#porting-restr=
ictions
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
> Tomoaki AOKI    <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp>
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> That may very well be an option possibly with some guidelines to prevent i=
t turning into  a loophole for being a dumping ground. Since we've moved to g=
it perhaps another option might be to create a separate repo (possibly via s=
ubmodules) with less restricive polices and have that as an "add-on" for the=
 official tree without the ports team's and committers's involvement, a bit l=
ike "you're on your own" approach?

Managing these ports outside of the tree won=E2=80=99t do maintainers and us=
ers any favor and make managing local trees, quarterly branches etc. a night=
mare. It would literally create a pile of broken stuff that rots and gets wo=
rse over time.

A pragmatic approach would be to add ports that aren=E2=80=99t maintained up=
stream anymore to VuXML (or a similar mechanism used by =E2=80=9Cpkg audit=E2=
=80=9D), so users would get warned when installing/about installed packages t=
hat *could* be dangerous due to being unmaintained (but these entries should=
 be opt-out, in case users decide not to see these kinds of warnings).

-m












Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9D39E988-12D0-43E6-88C1-42D82326593D>