[Twisted-Python] ANN: pythonpackages.com beta
Eric P. Mangold
eric at teratorn.org
Tue Jul 31 10:24:02 EDT 2012
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 05:09:07PM -0400, Alex Clark wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> On 7/30/12 4:49 PM, Eric P. Mangold wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:49:56PM -0400, Alex Clark wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> On 7/30/12 12:31 PM, Eric P. Mangold wrote:
> >>> Alex,
> >>> I'm not sure if this is borderline off-topic, or not... but anyway..
> >>> I'm sure starting a discussion here IS offtopic.
> >>> But I have one question:
> >>> How do package authors verify the integrity of their packages built "through the web"?
> >> Good question, I just created:
> >> -
> >> http://docs.pythonpackages.com/en/latest/faq.html#how-do-package-authors-verify-the-integrity-of-packages-built-through-the-web
> > Let me be clear:
> > Is it possible to have any assurance that your system has faithfully built the package, and/or that your servers have not been compromised?
> > Why would anyone trust your web service to build packages, when it is *their* pgp, reputation and users that are at stake?
> > (Yes, I would ask Launchpad/Canonical, et. all the same question...)
> > (Also, if you're suggesting MD5 (following your link..) for anything related to security or data authenticity, then I *know* you're way off base.......)
> The point about md5 is not to suggest using it for security or data
Sorry, I think I have a problem with taking the exact text of my question,
on your wiki, and casting it to be a different question entirely. (through
no fault of your own, I'm sure)
I think I've clarified what my orignal question was meant to ask, namely how do
we trust YOU and YOUR build infrastructure, not "how do we verify that the data
you're give us hasn't been damaged in transit".
If you wouldn't mind editing your wiki to reflect my clarifications, I would
very much appreciate it :)
> it's to clarify that whatever security is currently place
> with PyPI (not a lot, admittedly) still applies, for whatever that is
> worth (not much, apparently).
> > Sorry if this is harsh - but it's intended. Without any kind of verifiable guarantee (get to work on that! :)) I don't think I could ever possibly use such a thing, and would advise against it.
> > Getting software to end-users is a tough challenge, and I applaude your efforts to try and make it easier. A system with a single point of failure and a single point of trust just isn't feasible or desirable, imho.Administrators need to know who has final responsibility and *authority*
> over the software that they are consuming. If "the cloud" is the last
> link in that chain, then you have a big problem, I think.
> The last link in the chain is PyPI (or a private index). The node before
> that is typically your laptop. I'm suggesting you make it
> pythonpackages.com instead.
Clearly PyPI is inadequate. Jumping on solutions, for HARD problems that always
require some form of cryptography to solve, is no more palettable.
And PyPI is also just a publishing platform - the packages have already been
minted by that point.
So as you suggest, the last point is the developer/release-manager, as it should
I think my point is that ideally you don't want to trust anyone except the
Debian et. all solve this with signed packages. I would be happy to download
Debian packages from http://pythonpackages.com all day long :)
Debian also rely upon trusted build machines. But they are a more-or-less open
organization with open review of what goes on.
That said, I don't have a problem with people placing their trust in you. I don't
know you, and don't have any opinion on it to be honest. You're probably a good guy ;)
I would suggest working toward BEING a better PyPI mirror. Build
the infrastructure necessary for people to publish python SOURCE packages,
as they are, to PyPI, to pythonpackages.com, etc. etc. There is a lot of value
to be added there.
Build tools to make python packaging easy. On your laptop. On the cloud. Wherever.
Open SOURCE is good like that.
More information about the Twisted-Python