Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:37:42 -0400 From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status of packages Message-ID: <CAD2Ti29S8i%2BGSFFV7O8JSKsk3StkfHWK0nE_JE4CgFWuOpFxaw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAE-m3X1sPLUywnNnvbm50i=t0L7LGVK5woN8OexqUA0PMuEh5Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAD2Ti29CQ5uchftP63niDB8ORLW7CCh%2B1qBco=P44=wtXhP7iA@mail.gmail.com> <20130326082325.GW2198@droso.net> <CAD2Ti2-3eTQ0wc-V8NLgkVANGcdigRjL5m9h_2eGFw4G=NQK5w@mail.gmail.com> <CAE-m3X1sPLUywnNnvbm50i=t0L7LGVK5woN8OexqUA0PMuEh5Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> It's nice to see something like redports. It can be helpful to those using >> ports to diagnose their local builds against the output of a formal >> sandbox >> service for the project. It would be cool if the logs, build hiers and >> packages >> from such a buildbot were accessible. They'd obviously always be in flux >> but >> still useful to see. > Redports is very bad for providing packages because of all the frequent > changes and the "chaotic nature" of such a system. Additionally the security > considerations made clear that redports should never provide any binary data > to users to minimize risk in case of a potential security incident. 'formal/project/service' and 'flux' were attempts at covering this. Another partial example might be pointyhat, the logs are viewable, but not the output file trees. The 'security' aspect would just seem whether the builds come from the main repo and are built in a pretty automated sandbox, or from joe's working tree in their own slush account.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAD2Ti29S8i%2BGSFFV7O8JSKsk3StkfHWK0nE_JE4CgFWuOpFxaw>