Hackage 2

Antoine Latter aslatter at gmail.com
Fri Aug 31 03:11:43 CEST 2012

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Ian Lynagh <ian at well-typed.com> wrote:
> [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
> could comment?
> 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.

At one point I think we tried to populate the per-package uploaders
group as a part of the import with everyone who had historically
uploaded the package - this relies on the historic user names lining
up with the current user accounts as imported. I guess that also
relies on order-of-operations of the import getting users first.

We get by with social conventions now, so it wouldn't be terrible to
get by with them on Hackage 2.


More information about the cabal-devel mailing list