[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 

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]