Box-Admins February 2011

box-admins@lists.squeakfoundation.org

11 participants
26 discussions

RE: [Box-Admins] Permissions
by Ken Causey 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

> -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Box-Admins] Permissions > From: Chris Muller <asqueaker(a)gmail.com> > Date: Sat, February 05, 2011 11:25 am > To: Squeak Hosting Support <box-admins(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org> > > > Göran, can you elaborate on the backup? What are we using now and > what's broken about it. > > HD's fail, backups are very important. Are you saying we're not > backed up right now? > > thanks.. Yes, right now there is no offsite backup. We have a local backup system for much content in case we just screw up but that doesn't help in the case of hard drive failure. Goran provided an offsite backup for a long time but lost the facility when he changed jobs. I've asked for help with this in the past with little response. It has been a while and perhaps it is time to ask again. Ken > > 2011/2/5 Göran Krampe <goran(a)krampe.se>: > > On 02/04/2011 10:19 PM, Ken Causey wrote: > >> > >> We already have this in some sense. Most individual projects are setup > >> under their own home directories and to administer them it is generally > >> sufficient to have access to the individual account, not superuser > >> access. For example the webteam manages the website without superuser > >> access and release teams can update the ftp site generally without > >> superuser access. So for example if someone wanted to volunteer to work > >> on bugs.squeak.org it would probably suffice to give them access to the > >> mantis user account. > >> > >> That said the use of sudo has been brought up before and it is worth > >> looking into. My grand plans to setup new servers included every > >> intention of making liberal use of sudo. But I simply haven't gotten > >> around to it. I would welcome any insights anyone has on configuring > >> sudo for our purposes. > >> > >> Ken > > > > IMHO the levels Ken describe are enough. If you are trusted with Linux admin > > stuff then root it is IMHO. Let's not complicate things :) > > > > ...and we really need to fix a running offsite scheduled backup. ASAP. > > > > Sidenote: Btw, I now use Duplicity with Deja Dup on my laptop - works good > > even for large files onto a vfat external USB drive. > > > > regards, Göran > >

3 2

RE: [Box-Admins] Permissions
by Ken Causey 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

We already have this in some sense. Most individual projects are setup under their own home directories and to administer them it is generally sufficient to have access to the individual account, not superuser access. For example the webteam manages the website without superuser access and release teams can update the ftp site generally without superuser access. So for example if someone wanted to volunteer to work on bugs.squeak.org it would probably suffice to give them access to the mantis user account. That said the use of sudo has been brought up before and it is worth looking into. My grand plans to setup new servers included every intention of making liberal use of sudo. But I simply haven't gotten around to it. I would welcome any insights anyone has on configuring sudo for our purposes. Ken > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Box-Admins] Permissions > From: Chris Cunnington <smalltalktelevision(a)gmail.com> > Date: Fri, February 04, 2011 2:26 pm > To: box-admins(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > > > I have a feeling that something could be done with permissions on the > box. As Ken's been working alone for a long time, I imagine that the > only level of permission is root. Naturally, he'd be worried about being > liberal with that. > > I think if a team of some sort is formed, then a three level schema of > permissions could be created. People like myself could be factored into > the running of the box in a way that allowed us to contributed without > danger. The work could be spread around a bit. > > Chris

3 2

Permissions
by Chris Cunnington 04 Feb '11

04 Feb '11

I have a feeling that something could be done with permissions on the box. As Ken's been working alone for a long time, I imagine that the only level of permission is root. Naturally, he'd be worried about being liberal with that. I think if a team of some sort is formed, then a three level schema of permissions could be created. People like myself could be factored into the running of the box in a way that allowed us to contributed without danger. The work could be spread around a bit. Chris

1 0

Chris Muller has root access now
by Ken Causey 04 Feb '11

04 Feb '11

Just a quick note that I added Chris Muller's ssh key to the root account on the server. FYI Ken

1 0

Box-Admins Team needs a new leader and/or we need a new way
by Ken Causey 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

Perhaps you've forgotten or didn't notice but I tried to resign as the Box-Admins Team Leader more than a year ago: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-January/143901.… Since that time I have simply done what I felt was necessary to maintain the status quo. I have neither the time nor interest in making large changes to our hosting infrastructure. The reality is that I'm an OK system administrator but a terrible manager, and I haven't found anyone willing and capable to take over or assist in any significant way. I suspect that we don't have very many people in this community with system administration experience and willingness and time to do the work. As a community I think we really need to think hard about how we want to move forward regarding the services we use within the community. I've always been a strong proponent of 'eating our own dogfood' but we've done very little in the last year or two progressing and even significantly maintaining our own services infrastructure. I suggest we strongly considered leveraging managed services in the vein of github, Google code, etc. I simply don't see that we have the will to manage these services ourselves in the immediate future. I can continue as I have been for a while, but we can't continue like this forever. I just don't have the interest in doing this work anymore beyond what is absolutely necessary. Ken Causey

2 1

4.2 release
by Chris Muller 01 Feb '11

01 Feb '11

Hello Squeak box-admins team, webteam and prominent community. The final 4.2 image has been posted ftp://ftp.squeak.org/4.2/Squeak4.2-10950.zip. Your help is now needed for the release process to be complete. I am new to this, but here is a list of things I suppose need to be done: ===================== - Final verification of the image (everyone). If no show-stoppers in a few hours, re-open the trunk for all development. - Create and populate the squeak42 squeaksource repository on source.squeak.org. (In progress: cmm) * create mac, win, and unix-linux directories on ftp server to house appropriate VM's. (Done: cmm) - Copy SqueakV41.sources there, OR, should we make a new V42 sources file? I think we can wait, opinions? * Copy LICENSE from the 4.1 directory, update the copyright date. (Done: cmm) - 4.1 had OS-specific .zip's for Windows and Mac that include the VM. A volunteer is needed for these two OS's. It looks like the Linux zip for 4.1 only had the image, I can put a similar one together for 4.2. - 4.1 also has a All-In-One zip that includes VM's for all OS's. webteam, did this get very many downloads over the last year, and something we want to do for 4.2? If so, we need a volunteer. Otherwise, we should remove it from the web-site. - update the www.squeak.org/download web-page to point to the new 4.2 releases. - Also update the squeak.org home page to appropriately replace references to 4.1 with 4.2. - Annoncement to squeak-dev (cmm volunteers). - Squeak News / blogs / rss-feeds pick up. ========================== If there are other items that need to be done, please say so. Thanks to you all, and everyone else who contributed to 4.2. - Chris

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

Box-Admins February 2011