Re: decommissioning

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:05 PM, dann frazier <dannf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 02:11:30PM -0500, John David Anglin wrote:
>> On 9-Feb-12, at 12:55 PM, dann frazier wrote:

>> >For 1) I think the right answer is to move services to a new
>> >stable/secure host for the time being and shut the existing machine
>> >down. We can retain the option of moving things back once the unstable
>> >port is in full force. As a side benefit, such a migration should also
>> >help get the existing services running w/ newer packages
>> >(e.g. apache2) and allow us cleanly transition services over w/
>> >minimal downtime (demonstrate a working system first, then update DNS
>> >records). Who knows how painful it will be to go from pre-lenny to sid
>> >all at once.
>> >
>> >2) can be solved by moving the domain to someone else's
>> >infrastructure, or having a trusted volunteer to be the primary
>> >admin for the system.
>> I need to update a few more packages before magnum is ready for buildd.
>> Thibaut offered to setup the buildd but doesn't have a lot of free
>> time.  I'm
>> willing to do general system admin and monitoring the build system,
>> but Thibaut  has to be in charge.  I'm hoping that Carlos is still
>> willing to help
>> with uploads, and to try to get his current patches into the debian
>> eglibc 2.13
>> patch set.  Otherwise, we may have to have a separate patch set.
>> I think ESIEE is the logical host site.  Magnum will be moved to an
>> "open" IP
>> when it's ready to start building.  It will require careful
>> firewalling at that time.
>> No objection to moving the current buildd to magnum.  I guess the
>> security
>> updates are the biggest issue.  Once the buildd is running, we can
>> work on
>> transitioning to a final release.
> All of the above sounds like good progress. However, it still leaves the
> machine running an unsupported OS for an undefined
> amount of time. During that time, this box will either need to be
> shutoff, or manually patched to avoid HP audit scans (or, worse yet,
> actual exploits). If the plan is to migrate this system to the
> debian-ports unstable archive when it becomes available, we'll need
> someone to maintain that install as well.

It looks to me like this burden clearly outweighs the benefits of
being selfhosted, so maybe the right move is to use a supported
architecture for hosting the website? Given the "audience" for
linux-parisc, I don't think it would make a significant difference...

my 2c.

Thibaut VARENE
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Free Online Dating]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

Add to Google Powered by Linux