The Artima Developer Community
Sponsored Link

Ruby Buzz Forum
A RubyGems + GitHub proposal

0 replies on 1 page.

Welcome Guest
  Sign In

Go back to the topic listing  Back to Topic List Click to reply to this topic  Reply to this Topic Click to search messages in this forum  Search Forum Click for a threaded view of the topic  Threaded View   
Previous Topic   Next Topic
Flat View: This topic has 0 replies on 1 page
Eric Hodel

Posts: 660
Nickname: drbrain
Registered: Mar, 2006

Eric Hodel is a long-time Rubyist and co-founder of Seattle.rb.
A RubyGems + GitHub proposal Posted: Feb 4, 2009 8:10 PM
Reply to this message Reply

This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Ruby Buzz by Eric Hodel.
Original Post: A RubyGems + GitHub proposal
Feed Title: Segment7
Feed URL: http://blog.segment7.net/articles.rss
Feed Description: Posts about and around Ruby, MetaRuby, ruby2c, ZenTest and work at The Robot Co-op.
Latest Ruby Buzz Posts
Latest Ruby Buzz Posts by Eric Hodel
Latest Posts From Segment7

Advertisement

I know many people have added GitHub to their RubyGems sources list and find it sub-optimal. For example, Nokogiri is installed via gem install nokogiri from RubyForge and gem install tenderlove-nokogiri from GitHub. Furthermore, it’s possible to create a username/gem name combo on GitHub that overlaps a RubyForge name which could lead to pain and suffering for GitHub users.

I’ve come up with a potential solution to this problem:

  • Add an alias name attribute to gem specifications that point to the “RubyForge name” for the gem
  • Add an index to the gem server that maps alias names to “RubyForge names”
  • Only signed gems with an alias name will be included in this index
  • When RubyGems looks for a gem to install it considers aliased gems as exact matches for a name, provided they satisfy the user’s trust policy

Using this solution, a user could install a gem that has a dependency on nokogiri. If nokogiri is signed on GitHub and there’s a newer version on GitHub than on RubyForge, the GitHub version would be installed.

Here are some discussions points this solution presents:

  • GitHub currently builds gems for authors, so it is impossible for these gems to be signed. GitHub would have to store the author’s private key for signing.
  • By default RubyGems sets no security policy, so it doesn’t address the name overlap problem (this default could be changed)
  • Furthermore, it would not prevent a trusted author from turning rogue
  • Using a trust policy, a user can choose to pull gems from GitHub for specific authors by trusting the author’s public key (e.g. only install signed gems, only install trusted gems)
  • There’s no infrastructure for easily trusting an author’s key (beyond gem cert)
  • It doesn’t give GitHub a central authority for gems, but one could be built through a web of trust

Read: A RubyGems + GitHub proposal

Topic: Can We Share Our Extensions Without Monkey Patching? Previous Topic   Next Topic Topic: Rails 2.3 (RC1) Released - Summary of Features

Sponsored Links



Google
  Web Artima.com   

Copyright © 1996-2019 Artima, Inc. All Rights Reserved. - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use