Re: [Action Required] glibc decision to use CTI services.

[Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>]

Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> writes:

> On 2023-09-01 02:03, Sam James via Libc-alpha wrote:
>> Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> writes:
>> 
>>> On 2023-08-30 10:31, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>>> I believe the LF has already agreed to implement the hosting entirely with
>>>> free software.
>>>
>>> Where is this agreement written down? I didn't see it in the URLs
>>> mentioned at the start of this thread.
>>>
>>> Too often it is tempting to use non-free software in these
>>> enterprises, and we need to have an agreement and a commitment about
>>> an enforcement mechanism that detects and repairs things if somebody
>>> falls victim to this temptation (and of course that guides people away
>>> from succumbing to the temptation in the first place). This detection
>>> and enforcement mechanism has to be usable by glibc software
>>> contributors and maintainers, not just by the CTI providers.
>
> It is the Technical Advisory Committee that decides on the
> infrastructure tech and that is comprised completely of members from
> the GNU toolchain community.  We will make sure that glibc services
> are implemented using Free software.

Thank you.

>
>>>
>>> As I'm new to this (I just read yesterday that a decision is wanted by
>>> today) I'll vote NAY until I see something more binding about this
>>> important issue.
>>>
>> It's still unclear to me what problems this will solve compared to
>> using sourceware.
>> As far as I've seen, the sourceware overseers handle requests
>> promptly. Is there something we've asked them to do which they've
>> been unable to fulfill?
>
> There was a fairly long thread here and on overseers list last year on
> the motivation for moving to LFIT, if that's what you're asking
> about.

Thanks - I did read that at the time, but I wasn't very specific here,
sorry. I guess I meant I don't really understand the transition plan
if it goes ahead.

While we know they handle kernel.org fine, I'm a bit nervous
about it being an unknown entity wrt glibc - and also whether
it needs to be all or nothing.

Could they not provide services in addition to sourceware,
at least initially? Do we need to move all the eggs?

Or, to put it another way: it just seems like a leap into the unknown
and I don't really get why it's worth it yet.

> To summarize, it's not about the overseers, who have indeed
> been prompt in handling requests and providing support for existing
> infrastructure. It's about doing things like service isolation, future
> enhancements/scaling and dedicated devops, that current infrastructure
> (that we depend on Red Hat to provide) is unable to
> support. Essentially, this is a move from Red Hat to LF.
>

Have we actually hit scaling issues? The only real thing we need to
scale up is our testing AFAIK - which we have builder.sourceware.org for now
and it's growing.

I can see the advantage in dedicated devops and service isolation -
although I don't know if sw has given an opinion on whether they can
do service isolation.

best,
sam