develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from January 2021

Re: rt.cpan.org next steps

Thread Previous
From:
Christian Walde
Date:
January 30, 2021 15:41
Subject:
Re: rt.cpan.org next steps
Message ID:
op.0x1huxedydyjqt@xenwide.vpn.udag.de
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 16:26:31 +0100, Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021, at 11:10 PM, Christian Walde wrote:
>>> In its current form, rt.cpan.org is not sustainable.  It needs to be ported, upgraded, and have its tires >>>kicked.
>> Is there any chance of giving a description of at least some of the exact obstacles that raise it to the >>level of "unsustainable", in practical terms?
>
> I don't want to get into a debate over what "sustainable" means, but in brief:  its hosting is going away.  It's running >in a container configured in ways not trivial to 'just reproduce."  It's also running a very old version of RT (and other >software) that aren't trivially updated.  The central point here is "just keep the existing instance running untouched" >is not an option on the table, so we are looking at other ones.

Right, i have no intention to prescribe what sustainable means, but it was unclear what you meant when you said it.

And yeah, as someone who followed this matter for a while, it was clear that the issue of replicating the OS environment would be some work, and no question that "just keep it running" was an option.

However "RT must be updated" (which causes a rat tail of more work) is a claim that can either come from "it would literally fall over within 2 hours of starting if mangled regularly by a human or updated" or from something like "there are some known vulnerabilities so to be safe it must be upgraded at some point". There's a vast gulf of possible meaning here.

The question is where in that spectrum does the cause actually fall?

-- 
With regards,
Christian Walde
Thread Previous


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About