From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:58f0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms13.migadu.com with LMTPS id UCW0F5C0x2ap/wAA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 21:58:40 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:58f0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1.migadu.com with LMTPS id UCW0F5C0x2ap/wAA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 23:58:40 +0200 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1724363920; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post; bh=SsNgRfvoO7xzXaiOxpao0z8tCe0cdyKvLDGE8i4WFtc=; b=UBbeeIvPOKoRl8wbRt1Icku1zOBFaJOGe6q68skWJJL7JvrLkPMO+Blnc43J8p49byvaDB GgchqBvUFL6XJJFHGg/z/1KcQwijJcg8oIAcjD6QdRCOTO2qhaUpZ8Tz+oVKmLL0Vm5udp mZRht+cU9JsXke2kl0NBb4urPvxWpdFQ23Q6H0YbwCrcKalk/kxkrSjJCssrqru+ttLpBu CVaM9+a2BvWUM2R+nVYbfLS5Kx4jKGsK3vaCGalTMb6X95H8dxPlpMdOO9UOozpPQfK9ib A9yYwePMEF8UwyTXdCncERN/7aoCvfL4pUXRftbWpCnWcAEz80u7QdP1NjTHVQ== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1724363920; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=lCCn4ThT++y18/11+2lWRyx5gDqtE3y9iSto7eqSWsD9i/mxbV9/mVamh5kFULLwZAsJy1 NsZxuHUGMhkQqY282TAcgd+EWXYu858bmLwLiLi5G3WBiJoQX1gOwA8qhrgwzEtt0VTnXY QVqUaeCZ+AWMh2zuDVgSQxbe31dwY5V1ThR6WjVFljYgTpMiPLnhxPjty1TlgiktH8Yrzp tiEnhhlHpmmq7u+fPswdOXeS+jHRtjXfSa/mv/YxMKLd9I7vpGquRwd2AMU+3oUjKcxSyf B5hrk1CIXYDw1CDNe+iWy4VpIQ2DlX4ejh9h6FSrq7OVndBz07ycfPANlvgnqw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F03B46348A for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 23:58:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1shFom-0003Rl-26; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:58:08 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1shFok-0003QB-3Z; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:58:06 -0400 Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1shFoi-0006Z3-4k; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:58:05 -0400 Received: from localhost (68-74-198-14.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net [68.74.198.14]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by mx.sdf.org (8.18.1/8.14.3) with ESMTPSA id 47MLvhAD010175 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Thu, 22 Aug 2024 21:57:46 GMT To: Andreas Enge Cc: Christine Lemmer-Webber , Jonathan Frederickson , Sergio Pastor =?utf-8?Q?P=C3=A9rez?= , Marek =?utf-8?Q?Pa=C5=9Bnikowski?= , Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , guix-devel@gnu.org, guix-sysadmin Subject: Re: P2P Guix package building and distribution In-Reply-To: (Andreas Enge's message of "Thu, 22 Aug 2024 11:05:45 +0200") References: <87sewr98jd.fsf@gnu.org> <87sevnhp02.fsf@marekpasnikowski.pl> <3ad5baad-2ab6-4fa4-8788-717f827ccf86@app.fastmail.com> <87msl5o7gh.fsf@dustycloud.org> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:57:36 -0400 Message-ID: <875xrsw78v.fsf@sdf.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=shcv@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-to: Samuel Christie From: Samuel Christie via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -3.98 X-Spam-Score: -3.98 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: F03B46348A X-Migadu-Scanner: mx11.migadu.com X-TUID: XrkQ+hAXnFlX Andreas Enge writes: > Am Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 06:07:58PM -0400 schrieb Christine > Lemmer-Webber: >> Okay, but what if instead I had the option to download >> something signed off by *all of* the MegaCloud build service >> and two "Guix Builders", and they all came to the same hash? > > Would this not suppose that all these build instances are > completely disjoint from each other (like bordeaux or ci), and > thus will have to build everything from scratch? Since if a > "Guix Builder" uses a MegaCloud input, every build from then on > is no more secure than a MegaCloud build. Yes; every step needs to be validated to ensure the final result is correct. That doesn't mean all builders need to validate the full tree, just one non-colluding party for each output. Maybe one solution is to have the community perform the primary builds, with "official" builders arbitrating when there's a disagreement over the hash. As long as each package is built by at least one non-colluding peer, any deviations will be caught. This would be simpler than a full consensus protocol, but still avoid most conflicts and ensure correctness. Repeat offenders should eventually be ignored or banned somehow, but in the worst case it devolves to the system we have now of official servers building everything. > Given the effort (in money and administrators' time) to run one > build farm, it does not look realistic that several people start > their own build farm at home. Ideally, the software would be as simple as turning on a service to participate. And they shouldn't have to be "full" build farms, just share some of the load. Since packages are already built locally if no substitutes are available, it might be interesting to simply let the first few computers that install the package build and share it. Then only ~2 people have to build new packages (for minimal verification) instead of making everyone do it until an official substitute exists.