[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] self-contained changesets?
From: |
Jan Hudec |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] self-contained changesets? |
Date: |
Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:47:55 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 13:30:51 -0700, Tupshin Harper wrote:
> Tom Lord wrote:
>
> > > From: Joshua Haberman <address@hidden>
> >
> > > Arch seems to require that anyone who wants to make their personal
> > > changes available to the world have access to a publically available
> > > server to host their personal archive. Is this a safe assumption?
> >
> >Mostly I think it is -- but that doesn't mean that it isn't worth
> >providing support for when the assumption is false. It's also not
> >quite the case that arch requires that -- although the ways in which
> >it doesn't require it should probably be made more featureful.
> >
> >Would you agree that email and netnews provide the other two most
> >obvious transports?
> >
> >
> Mail, certainly; netnews possibly. But don't overlook the convenience
> factor of making it easy for one person (maybe the project lead) to host
> archives/branches for other people, and giving only those people write
> access to their archives. Since arch doesn't have its own server and
> uses other mechanisms (webdav, sftp, etc), this is not strictly an arch
> issue. But howtos and prefab setup scripts for configuring a server to
> be either a primary archive or a mirror archive for a remote user would
> help alleviate this issue.
Probably the easiest solution would be to have a restricted sftp server
with a limit on a per-key basis. Limiting ssh keys to run only specific
command works nicely. So the restricted sftp server remains. Does it not
exist somewhere yet?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 'Bulb' Hudec
<address@hidden>