Menu
▾
▴
wigwam-devel
|
From: Mike A. <as...@ya...> - 2006-12-08 15:36:50
|
Hullo, Anybody done a talk about wigwam? I seem to remember Fess and Heather doing something at some sysadmin conference. I'm going to give a little lightning presentation at a small conference and could use something to work from. Lates, -mike ---- I have switched from UGCS to Yahoo Mail. Please update your contacts with as...@ya.... ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited |
|
From: Corey P. <cp...@df...> - 2006-12-08 16:10:31
|
Heather and a few others put together a paper for LISA in 2002. IIRC, the conference organizers said that it was "too developer" for a systems conference. Anyway, Heather is the person to ask about the continued existance of the paper. On 7:36 Fri 12/08/06 or thereabouts, Mike Astle wrote: > Hullo, > > Anybody done a talk about wigwam? I seem to remember Fess and Heather doing > something at some sysadmin conference. I'm going to give a little lightning > presentation at a small conference and could use something to work from. > > Lates, > > -mike > > ---- > > I have switched from UGCS to Yahoo Mail. > Please update your contacts with as...@ya.... > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Music Unlimited > Access over 1 million songs. > http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Wigwam-devel mailing list > Wig...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wigwam-devel |
|
From: Heather S. <he...@ki...> - 2006-12-08 18:32:52
|
> Heather and a few others put together a paper for LISA in 2002. > IIRC, the > conference organizers said that it was "too developer" for a systems > conference. > > Anyway, Heather is the person to ask about the continued existance > of the > paper We had a paper proposal (rejected, those darn short-sighted sysadmins!), an outline for a paper and a WIP (work in progress talk, the bone they threw me :-) I vaguely think I checked some of this into the CVS repository for the wigwam-base project, but will check and make sure it's all there. Heather |
|
From: Heather S. <he...@ki...> - 2006-12-08 18:59:03
|
> Heather and a few others put together a paper for LISA in 2002. > IIRC, the > conference organizers said that it was "too developer" for a systems > conference. > > Anyway, Heather is the person to ask about the continued existance > of the > paper. Okey-dokey. Added the stuff here: wigwam-base/doc/usenix-paper The partial paper is in docbook-xml, but if you are looking for lightning sales pitch, the wip blurb and notes are probably closer (systems administration/release engineer focussed, of course). I'm sure I had a PPT, too, but I'm still hunting for it. FYI, my cvs commit complained: /usr/bin/python: can't open file '/cvsroot/gdam/CVSROOT/syncmail' Heather |
|
From: fess <fe...@fe...> - 2006-12-08 19:39:43
|
What's going on with wigwam? are you going to continue using it? Heather, are you using it? I still use it for rampplans.org but I don't change things much. Snap is using it, but they've do some kind of chroots and binary launching. wigwam 4 is better and even more obscure because no one switched to it. wigwam is still fundamentally flawed in how difficult it is to use it's package archive, and that it has no built in strategy to use binary packaging. I love that it lets me dev on osx and launch to linux though. but don't worry.. When It's Good, We All Migrate. --fess On Dec 8, 2006, at 10:58 AM, Heather Sherman wrote: > >> Heather and a few others put together a paper for LISA in 2002. >> IIRC, the >> conference organizers said that it was "too developer" for a systems >> conference. >> >> Anyway, Heather is the person to ask about the continued existance >> of the >> paper. > > Okey-dokey. Added the stuff here: > > wigwam-base/doc/usenix-paper > > The partial paper is in docbook-xml, but if you are looking for > lightning sales pitch, the wip blurb and notes are probably closer > (systems administration/release engineer focussed, of course). > > I'm sure I had a PPT, too, but I'm still hunting for it. > > FYI, my cvs commit complained: > > /usr/bin/python: can't open file '/cvsroot/gdam/CVSROOT/syncmail' > > Heather |
|
From: Corey P. <cp...@df...> - 2006-12-08 19:59:32
|
I still use it for a few things, poth personal and professional. Never did look at v. 4. Can it use v. 3 packages? On 11:39 Fri 12/08/06 or thereabouts, fess wrote: > > > What's going on with wigwam? are you going to continue using it? > > Heather, are you using it? I still use it for rampplans.org but I > don't change things much. Snap is using it, but they've do some kind > of chroots and binary launching. > > wigwam 4 is better and even more obscure because no one switched to it. > > wigwam is still fundamentally flawed in how difficult it is to use > it's package archive, and that it has no built in strategy to use > binary packaging. I love that it lets me dev on osx and launch to > linux though. > > but don't worry.. When It's Good, We All Migrate. > > --fess > > On Dec 8, 2006, at 10:58 AM, Heather Sherman wrote: > > > > >> Heather and a few others put together a paper for LISA in 2002. > >> IIRC, the > >> conference organizers said that it was "too developer" for a systems > >> conference. > >> > >> Anyway, Heather is the person to ask about the continued existance > >> of the > >> paper. > > > > Okey-dokey. Added the stuff here: > > > > wigwam-base/doc/usenix-paper > > > > The partial paper is in docbook-xml, but if you are looking for > > lightning sales pitch, the wip blurb and notes are probably closer > > (systems administration/release engineer focussed, of course). > > > > I'm sure I had a PPT, too, but I'm still hunting for it. > > > > FYI, my cvs commit complained: > > > > /usr/bin/python: can't open file '/cvsroot/gdam/CVSROOT/syncmail' > > > > Heather > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Wigwam-devel mailing list > Wig...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wigwam-devel |
|
From: fess <fe...@fe...> - 2006-12-08 20:01:18
|
On Dec 8, 2006, at 11:59 AM, Corey Porter wrote: > look at v. 4. Can it use v. 3 packages? yes. it use the same, or simplified package archive. [ simplified meaning the names of pkg files don't have to have the pkg names or version in them. ] --fess |
|
From: Heather S. <he...@ki...> - 2006-12-08 20:00:01
|
> > What's going on with wigwam? are you going to continue using it? > > Heather, are you using it? I still use it for rampplans.org but I > don't change things much. Snap is using it, but they've do some > kind of chroots and binary launching. I used it to deploy a lot of stuff at CENIC, but I don't know if it will persist now that I've left. I think the sysadmins were pretty scared of it. I still use it for personal stuff and to give me a good environment for prototype stuff I want to install and try out (phppgadmin recently). UW has elaborate infrastructure they developed way back and the group that handles their servers isn't really looking for other solutions to their problems :-) I'm not in that group, so I don't think about it. > wigwam is still fundamentally flawed in how difficult it is to use > it's package archive, and that it has no built in strategy to use > binary packaging. I love that it lets me dev on osx and launch to > linux though. > > but don't worry.. When It's Good, We All Migrate. Well, I'm all subversion-compliant now, too. Heather |
|
From: fess <fe...@fe...> - 2006-12-08 20:23:49
|
On Dec 8, 2006, at 11:59 AM, Heather Sherman wrote: > Well, I'm all subversion-compliant now, too. nice. wigwam 4 supports plugable version control systems. *grin* --fess |
|
From: Mike A. <as...@lo...> - 2006-12-08 20:59:57
|
Heya, > What's going on with wigwam? are you going to continue using it? We just started using it here at Lokku (http://www.lokku.com). Some of my colleagues where not impressed by a project that has so little development and no evident use, but I compelled them by force of argument (it took be 3 weeks to get a working playpen) and they seem to be coming around. > chroots and binary launching Sounds a bit like ypackage. > wigwam 4 is better and even more obscure because no one switched to it. We are using SVN, so the wig3 launch tools aren't of use to use, but we get by nicely with tarballs and symlinks. I didn't realize that wig4 could be used with other version control systems. That shivers my fucking timbers. Will check it out. > how difficult it is to use it's package archive My only major problem here is that there is no smooth upgrade procedure for when packages change. That is, if I change the project-packages, I can't signal others to uninstall/install the old/new version. Otherwise, the simple packages work well enough for us. Builds failing because of inter-distro eccentricities are more of a problem than anything specific to The Wam. > binary packaging Can't you specify support archs for a package? You _could_ just make raw packages and copy them straight into ext, if you're that keen. > I love that it lets me dev on osx and launch to linux We do the same. Modulo the bit of weirdness, it all works well. Wigwam is the only tool I know about that solves a particular and common set of problems. I felt a bit old school picking it up again, but I didn't see a good alternative. Is there something else out there that competes? -mike |
|
From: Jason S. <ja...@sh...> - 2006-12-08 23:13:22
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Wigwam is the only tool I know about that solves a particular and common > set of problems. I felt a bit old school picking it up again, but I > didn't see a good alternative. Is there something else out there that > competes? absolutely agreed. wigwam solves some important problems like no other tool that I know of, and so, despite some serious brokenness, I continue to use and support it. >> wigwam 4 is better and even more obscure because no one switched to it. tell me more about wigwam-4. is there documentation? of particular use would be a side-by-side, "here's the old way to do foo, here's the new way to do foo, here's the old way to do bar, here's the new way to do bar," etc. is there such a thing? I seem to remember fess or paulie asking me about how to make a safe setuid chroot wrapper. did that ever happen? -Jason -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) Comment: See https://private.idealab.com/public/jason/jason.gpg iD8DBQFFefGQswXMWWtptckRAocwAKCnBjxW0GOQ4cdn8YtSw2RHPnyO3QCdEICG YN9iLCCsDAmPH26ADx3UUic= =aJPv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: fess <fe...@fe...> - 2006-12-09 00:15:46
|
On Dec 8, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Jason Stone wrote: > >>> wigwam 4 is better and even more obscure because no one switched >>> to it. > > tell me more about wigwam-4. is there documentation? of > particular use would be a side-by-side, "here's the old way to do > foo, here's the new way to do foo, here's the old way to do bar, > here's the new way to do bar," etc. is there such a thing? there's a migration guide on this page: http://wigwam-framework.org/documentation.html don't know if it's clear enough. > I seem to remember fess or paulie asking me about how to make a > safe setuid chroot wrapper. did that ever happen? no we didn't get anywhere with that. That was an attempt to further reduce dependancies on the base system, another wigwam deficiency is that the boundry between wigwam and the base system is blurry to say the least. --fess |
|
From: Jason S. <ja...@sh...> - 2006-12-09 00:29:29
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > there's a migration guide on this page: > > http://wigwam-framework.org/documentation.html hm. not quite what I was looking for. I'll look at the other docs and see if they help. also, I notice the dates on those - two-and-a-half years ago! crazy.... has any work been done on wigwam-4 since then? >> I seem to remember fess or paulie asking me about how to make a safe setuid >> chroot wrapper. did that ever happen? > > no we didn't get anywhere with that. That was an attempt to further > reduce dependancies on the base system, another wigwam deficiency is > that the boundry between wigwam and the base system is blurry to say the > least. yes, this is, for my money, the biggest flaw in wigwam. it's all well and good to say that wigwam frees you from local system dependencies, but it's way too easy to start relying on system libraries and not even realizing it - this has bitten me several times. chrooting is the only way to be sure. plus, it buys you paranoia points. -Jason -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) Comment: See https://private.idealab.com/public/jason/jason.gpg iD8DBQFFegNnswXMWWtptckRAvEbAKC9OzQyB5U+98u4y/1nT20D87vOYgCgwyPL l58uF2FVUn8kKMkDjjklbN0= =lfjC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: fess <fe...@fe...> - 2006-12-09 00:42:52
|
On Dec 8, 2006, at 4:29 PM, Jason Stone wrote: > also, I notice the dates on those - two-and-a-half years ago! > crazy.... has any work been done on wigwam-4 since then? nope. no work on wigwam 3 either. --fess |
|
From: Michael R. <mr...@bl...> - 2006-12-09 00:43:33
|
Jason Stone writes: > >>I seem to remember fess or paulie asking me about how to make a safe > >>setuid chroot wrapper. did that ever happen? > > > >no we didn't get anywhere with that. That was an attempt to further > >reduce dependancies on the base system, another wigwam deficiency is > >that the boundry between wigwam and the base system is blurry to say the > >least. > > yes, this is, for my money, the biggest flaw in wigwam. it's all well and > good to say that wigwam frees you from local system dependencies, but it's > way too easy to start relying on system libraries and not even realizing > it - this has bitten me several times. chrooting is the only way to be > sure. plus, it buys you paranoia points. We started down the chroot path at Snap last year, but there were several issues that didn't seem to have a clean solution. For instance, LOCAL_VAR...ideally you could have several versioned chroot playpens side by side, and you could start any one of them using the same LOCAL_VAR so that persistent data (e.g. mysql databases) is saved. We couldn't figure out a way to do that without hard-linking directories or having serving the directory via NFS over localhost so it can be mounted in several places (if that's even kosher). Did anyone else ever think of a better way to do this? Mike P.S. I'd say the biggest flaw in Wigwam 3 is that 'packagectl update-packages' doesn't rebuild packages when their dependencies are upgraded (whereas 'packagectl upgrade PACKAGE' does). But that should be fixable. :) |
|
From: Jason S. <ja...@sh...> - 2006-12-09 02:47:59
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > We couldn't figure out a way to do that without hard-linking directories > or having serving the directory via NFS over localhost so it can be > mounted in several places (if that's even kosher). Did anyone else ever > think of a better way to do this? rumour has it that a certain internet media company with a '!' in its name does it via nfs localhost mounting into the chroots. it works okay - the only hassles are administrative ones (ie, the chroot launcher has to be able to create new /etc/exports entries on demand, but our config management system wants to rule /etc with an iron fist...). > P.S. I'd say the biggest flaw in Wigwam 3 is that 'packagectl > update-packages' doesn't rebuild packages when their dependencies are > upgraded (whereas 'packagectl upgrade PACKAGE' does). But that should > be fixable. :) yes, this drives me nuts, and I always forget it and then my builds break until I manually start upgrading things one at a time or give up and rewrite etc/project-packages by hand and just rebuild from scratch. but as you say, it's pretty fixable - it's not a fundamental design flaw the way that lack of chroot is. -Jason -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) Comment: See https://private.idealab.com/public/jason/jason.gpg iD8DBQFFeiGFswXMWWtptckRAn5IAJ9RFYaNKxWAU1Q2lfoxpvfyH0HkKwCfUoPd IAvI4E/fZLgiX7cPoP3DB30= =Ah4n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Dave B. <da...@id...> - 2006-12-11 19:39:52
|
> >P.S. I'd say the biggest flaw in Wigwam 3 is that 'packagectl > >update-packages' doesn't rebuild packages when their dependencies are > >upgraded (whereas 'packagectl upgrade PACKAGE' does). But that should > >be fixable. :) > > yes, this drives me nuts, and I always forget it and then my builds break > until I manually start upgrading things one at a time or give up and > rewrite etc/project-packages by hand and just rebuild from scratch. but > as you say, it's pretty fixable - it's not a fundamental design flaw the > way that lack of chroot is. i just committed a fix to this, btw. (and hopefully i fixed the syncmail scripts so that future commits will be emailed out...) (haven't actually made a package of it yet, though.) - dave |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X