2 ms·
If you are going to build a package manager, can I humbly suggest to take the learnings of late and use a DHT + strong signing of every package? This practice
by revelation 11y ago
If you are going to build a package manager, can I humbly suggest to take the learnings of late and use a DHT + strong signing of every package?
This practice of forever chaining a language to a bunch of fragile servers out there that go bad at the rate of links is worrying.
- sdboyer 11y agoI considered including some mention of crypto assurances of packages in the article. I did not, because it would take someone who knows the constraints dictated by such systems far better than I to come up with a means by which such mechanisms could be integrated into a PDM...and have people still use it. Most of the integrity of packaging systems (at the PDM level), derive from the assurances provided by the underlying VCS - e.g., Git's tamper-proofing assurances by virtue of how its commit DAG is built. If your system has a registry in the middle, that does create an SPOF; if that registry intermediates the VCS with tarballs, that takes away the clients' ability to rely on the VCS for verification. So, in my naive view, that's the point at which signing becomes more crucial.