ian at well-typed.com
Fri Aug 31 02:57:55 CEST 2012
[moving to cabal-dev@]
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 08:13:01PM -0400, Leon Smith wrote:
> Ok, I tried to upload the most recent version of postgresql-simple, and I
> couldn't because I'm not the maintainer for that package.
> Has anybody ever uploaded a package that they shouldn't have on the old
> Hackage? Is this security really necessary at this stage in the game?
> I'm very much of the philosophy that, given that we must approve
> accounts, that we rely on social processes instead of technical solutions
> for these types of access control issues until (and unless) experience
> proves that we do need some kind of technical solution. But by then,
> hopefully we'll have a better idea of what we need.
I wasn't involved in the design of that, so I wonder if someone who was
The most analogous large system I'm familiar with is Debian, which AFAIK
has no technical measures to stop any developer uploading any package,
but is careful about who it allows to become a developer.
Perhaps it is redundant to have both the "uploaders" group and the
"per-package uploaders" functionality enabled, and even if the software
continues to support both, we should only enable one or the other on the
central Hackage site? In which case, which do we want?
If we do stay with the "per-package uploaders" feature, then I wonder
whether we should have a special case for packages with an empty access
list (i.e. all currently existing packages), such that anyone can upload
a new version of them, and anyone doing so becomes the sole uploader for
that package? That would avoid the admins having to get involved for
every package, as well as every person.
More information about the cabal-devel