We've discussed a few things here at the FOSDEM, with Hans (De Goede), Xavier (Lamien) and Remi (Collet). Here's what we've done so far : [...]

Xavier showed us that the FAS was actually up and running, so we'll be checking that, but it might be already finished (in which case, "thanks Thorsten!").

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote : > > Xavier showed us that the FAS was actually up and running, so we'll be > > checking that, but it might be already finished (in which case, "thanks > > Thorsten!"). > > I did the initial setup and gave Xavier access to it one or two weeks > ago. Not sure what he did in between, but the two main missing things > that were still missing two weeks ago > > - generation for the client-side certificate I've fixed this this afternoon, after Xavier left.

missing,

- Rebrand all of the web interface (to remove "Fedora" where it doesn't make sense to have it) - minor - Check and update the agreement text sent by email. - Make the agreement signing work (as it seems to be sent by email, thus processed by some script from there?) - Probably a little more fixes... testing will say...

- make the CVS looks-aside cache work, which uses FAS for/the > certificates for authentification

> I setup the buildsys (plague) last fall a few weeks before F8 was > released -- nothing should have changed, so it should still be running > (or it should be possible to get it into a running state again without > to much work). Yeah. Looks like it's working ;-) A few other things finished today : - Detailed server list on http://rpmfusion.org/Infrastructure - Rename of the 3 servers - Self-signed SSL certificate added for FAS https access - Viewvc web interface added for CVS http access I think that's pretty much it. I hope to be able to spare some time to help get everything finished ASAP, but I'm also afraid that getting back to my "normal life" tomorrow will make me go mostly silent again... keep your fingers crossed for that not to happen, I guess! ;-) Too bad so few Fedora packagers seemed to have made it to the FOSDEM... well, at least I met Xavier and Remi for the first time, and had fun hanging out with all "the usual folks" too :-D

-- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) - Linux kernel 2.6.23.15-137.fc8 Load : 0.05 0.04 0.00

Xavier Lamien wrote : > Regarding FAS, there still seems to be more work required : >> - Rebrand all of the web interface (to remove "Fedora" where it doesn't >> make sense to have it) - minor >> - Check and update the agreement text sent by email. >> - Make the agreement signing work (as it seems to be sent by email, >> thus processed by some script from there?) >> - Probably a little more fixes... testing will say... > That should be fix at the end of this week, will do some work around. > If you guys have some ideas about an potential theme, feel free to post. But if we need to redirect an email address to have sent emails be piped to a script on a server which has access to the FAS in order to check the GPG signature... it's going to be slightly harder and you will most likely need me to configure some stuff on the email side. If we don't really care about the agreement, and only want to verify the user's GPG signature, then we could short-circuit that part of the signup and just let the user upload a signed file through the FAS web interface.

> 2) Matthias have you dared to reboot the cvs / plague / fas hosting physical > machine yet with a new mkinitrd using dtp_io (and then do a number of rsyncs > from it) ? Just did it. Failed miserably it seems... I'll have someone check the console in the morning, so no FAS/CVS/Plague/... to work on until then, sorry.

Matthias Saou wrote: > Xavier Lamien wrote : >> Regarding FAS, there still seems to be more work required : >>> - Rebrand all of the web interface (to remove "Fedora" where it doesn't >>> make sense to have it) - minor >>> - Check and update the agreement text sent by email. >>> - Make the agreement signing work (as it seems to be sent by email, >>> thus processed by some script from there?) >>> - Probably a little more fixes... testing will say... >> That should be fix at the end of this week, will do some work around. >> If you guys have some ideas about an potential theme, feel free to post. > But if we need to redirect an email address to have sent emails be > piped to a script on a server which has access to the FAS in order to > check the GPG signature... it's going to be slightly harder and you > will most likely need me to configure some stuff on the email side. > If we don't really care about the agreement, and only want to verify > the user's GPG signature, then we could short-circuit that part of the > signup and just let the user upload a signed file through the FAS web > interface. I think this is the best idea, the CLA makes no sense for rpmfusion, as the CLA gives a license to an legal instance to use the code contributed, but there is no legal instance, so one party to the CLA is the contributer, but who is going to be the other party in the rpmfusion case?

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 26.02.2008 15:16, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Matthias Saou wrote: >>> Xavier Lamien wrote : >>>> Regarding FAS, there still seems to be more work required : >>>>> - Rebrand all of the web interface (to remove "Fedora" where it doesn't >>>>> make sense to have it) - minor >>>>> - Check and update the agreement text sent by email. >>>>> - Make the agreement signing work (as it seems to be sent by email, >>>>> thus processed by some script from there?) >>>>> - Probably a little more fixes... testing will say... >>>> That should be fix at the end of this week, will do some work around. >>>> If you guys have some ideas about an potential theme, feel free to post. >>> But if we need to redirect an email address to have sent emails be >>> piped to a script on a server which has access to the FAS in order to >>> check the GPG signature... it's going to be slightly harder and you >>> will most likely need me to configure some stuff on the email side. >>> If we don't really care about the agreement, and only want to verify >>> the user's GPG signature, then we could short-circuit that part of the >>> signup and just let the user upload a signed file through the FAS web >>> interface. >> I think this is the best idea, the CLA makes no sense for rpmfusion, as the CLA >> gives a license to an legal instance to use the code contributed, but there is >> no legal instance, so one party to the CLA is the contributer, but who is going >> to be the other party in the rpmfusion case? > > Hmmm. You have a point. But on the other hand it might be wise to do > some easy CLA like "You hereby agree that all you contributions to > rpmfusion.org are licensed under <foo> if not otherwise specified > (implicit or explicit)" (foo=BSD?) Otherwise we might run into the same > problems we had in EPEL recently ("Can I safely take a spec from EPEL, > modify it and use it in my Repo?"). > Sounds like a plan, this also has the advantage that we can keep all the logic surrounding the CLA currently in fas.

Hans

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote : >> Xavier showed us that the FAS was actually up and running, so we'll be >> checking that, but it might be already finished (in which case, "thanks >> Thorsten!"). > I did the initial setup and gave Xavier access to it one or two weeks > ago. Not sure what he did in between, but the two main missing things > that were still missing two weeks ago > - generation for the client-side certificate I've fixed this this afternoon, after Xavier left. The CA was actually missing, so I created a simple one for RPM Fusion [...]

On 24.02.2008 23:56, Matthias Saou wrote: > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote : > >>> Xavier showed us that the FAS was actually up and running, so we'll be >>> checking that, but it might be already finished (in which case, "thanks >>> Thorsten!"). >> I did the initial setup and gave Xavier access to it one or two weeks >> ago. Not sure what he did in between, but the two main missing things >> that were still missing two weeks ago >> - generation for the client-side certificate > I've fixed this this afternoon, after Xavier left. The CA was actually > missing, so I created a simple one for RPM Fusion. thx > Regarding FAS, there still seems to be more work required : > - Rebrand all of the web interface (to remove "Fedora" where it doesn't > make sense to have it) - minor I imported fas into CVS for this purpose some weeks ago: export CVSROOT=:ext:<username>@cvs.rpmfusion.org:/cvs/rpmfusion cvs co fedora-accounts

[...] > - Probably a little more fixes... testing will say... Who is working further on this (an the CVS look-aside auth)? Xavier?

> - make the CVS looks-aside cache work, which uses FAS for/the >> certificates for authentification > Maybe this will be easy now that the certs work? It might be. I never looked at it closer, so I have no idea.

Too bad so few Fedora packagers seemed to have made it to the FOSDEM... > well, at least I met Xavier and Remi for the first time, and had fun > hanging out with all "the usual folks" too :-D Sorry, I couldn't make it. The past two weeks were stressing enough even without traveling to bruessels :-/ (and the next one will be problematic as well...)

knurd