Fosdem Summary (Re: CTI - Making a decision for glibc.)

[Arsen Arsenović]

DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:

> Joseph Myers <josmyers@redhat.com> writes:
>> The main thing that needs a lot of work and changes to how services 
>> operate internally, and sometimes to the hostnames people use to access 
>> them,
>
> gcc already has gcc.sourceware.org
>
> We could add a glibc.sourceware.org etc.
>
> Even if we don't split up the machine, at least we can get the world
> used to using the project-specific dns names, making future changes
> easier.

I'm actually somewhat of the opposite stance.

Such splitting per-project is more theater than security IMO.
Obviously, isolating otherwise services by e.g. containerizing them has
a real security effect, but I doubt splitting by project does especially
when e.g. editbugs is granted automatically based on email, which anyone
on one project has on the others.  Similarly, there's an effect to be
gained by centralizing authentication.

I'm of the opinion that in the long-term it'd be good to standardize
across and combine the toolchain projects into one.  This is no small
feat and won't likely ever fully happen, but there's clear overlap
(demonstrated by, for instance, somewhat frequently needing to resolve
PRs as MOVED to other projects), and the toolchain components share many
concerns (and can share code, and should share significantly more code
than they do right now, I think).

Have a lovely night.
-- 
Arsen Arsenović
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 418 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20260203/ab9007f6/attachment.sig>