=== 20WAAFCU3 is now known as wallyworld === Guest79566 is now known as wallyworld [11:44] wgrant: I'm tempted to just disallow LiveFS:requestBuild for private archives for now, as the issue with visibility of dependencies is going to take a while to get right (it can't all be done in requestBuild and dispatch, because the set of people who can see a LiveFSBuild might change later). Does that make sense to you? [11:45] PES are likely to need it, but not immediately. [11:50] cjwatson: Agreed. [11:50] The virtualizedness is the bigger problem. [11:50] Haven't got to that yet; working through your review in order ... [11:50] Oh [11:50] You're in for an unpleasant surprise :) [11:55] Well, it's a problem for opening it up to wider groups such as PES [11:56] It's not particularly a problem with the pretty restricted set of people who can create/edit livefses/livefsbuilds at the moment [11:57] That's true, but it might indicate that this model is fatally flawed. [11:57] I want to say that only people who can upload to some devirtualised archive should be able to request livefsbuilds, although most requests will be done by a bot user [11:57] Though I guess the consumers are few enough that we can easily change it later. [11:58] Right, that might be a sensible rule. [11:58] Sorry, should be able to request livefsbuilds for a devirt archive, I mean [11:59] (actually not a problem for PES, since they basically all have access to devirt archives already) === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha === olli_ is now known as olli [23:47] wgrant: So a "has any permission on any devirt archive" query is simple enough; what would you think of artificially giving ~ubuntu-cdimage-robot a devirt PPA just so that it passes this test and can run our normal image builds? [23:47] It would keep the code simple at the cost of a bit of deployment WTF [23:49] cjwatson: Have you thought about a proper long-term solution for this? I haven't managed to come up with one. [23:49] The cross-archive permission query isn't sustainable long-term, so I'm hoping we aren't backing ourselves into a corner here. [23:50] Long-term I'd hope we can do all livefs builds in scalingstack ... [23:50] True, but it's similar in many ways to the privacy issue. [23:51] But for the immediate term, that workaround sounds reasonable. [23:51] The simplest alternative that comes to mind is to have livefs virtualisation be an admin-settable property of some kind, rather than deriving it. [23:51] Yup, but that doesn't solve the privacy issue which is basically the same problem. [23:52] We'd then have to disallow building a given devirt LiveFS against a virt archive. [23:52] Maybe it would simplify things if you were likewise not allowed to build a public LiveFS against a private Archive. [23:53] The same kind of way a public Archive isn't allowed to have a private ArchiveDependency. [23:53] So we could just say that if you're building against a private Archive then the LiveFS owner has to match. [23:53] The ArchiveDependency situation is just marginally less bad than what was there before (no restriction). [23:54] Right, I'd suggest that owner of the dependent object should have to be able to see the archive. [23:54] At build-time. [23:54] But for private PPAs that has to be slightly stricter. [23:55] Possibly the LiveFS owner must have upload permissions [23:55] Requiring identity would mean that we don't have to worry about what happens if somebody gets added to one side or the other. [23:55] Which then also solves the virtness issue, so I've been wondering if we can reasonably make that a normalr estriction. [23:55] For build logs later. [23:55] True. [23:56] Any permission rather than just upload permission would be a bit easier logistically. [23:56] But it winds up much the same. [23:57] You mean ArchivePermission, I assume [23:57] ie. some kind of write access [23:57] Yes [23:58] That's what I intended, yeah [23:58] But "any permission" could be misconstrued to include ArchiveSubscriber, which is how ArchiveDependencies are now I think. [23:58] Maybe? [23:58] Anyway. [23:58] It potentially restricts our ability to use new teams for LiveFSes, but maybe that's OK [23:59] I'm just a bit worried about having to add ArchivePermissions for new teams to Ubuntu in order to be able to build livefses [23:59] For non-distro archives, whatever