Gentoo Archives: gentoo-web-user

From: Gunnar Wrobel <wrobel@g.o>
To: gentoo-web-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-web-user] Upstream requirements for web-apps
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:14:36
Message-Id: 87oe27kgse.fsf@monastery.lucy.homelinux.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-web-user] Upstream requirements for web-apps by Renat Lumpau
Renat Lumpau <rl03@g.o> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 04:59:56PM +0100, wrobel@g.o wrote: >> The current proposition is specified here: >> >> http://svn.gnqs.org/projects/gentoo-webapps-overlay/wiki/UpstreamRequirements >> >> In my discussion with Stuart this morning I did realize that there are >> not too many packages available that would actually meet these >> criteria. So far we probably have around five in the portage tree. > > I'm still not 100% clear on rationale for requirements as outlined there. > As Gunnar pointed out, very few packages in Portage currently satisfy those. > Perhaps it would make sense for us to start by outlining the goals of our > upstream requirements (e.g., reliable contact in case of security bugs) and then > decide how to best achieve them? > >> The main blocker are the security requirements since many projects do >> not provide special security contacts or mailing lists devoted >> security. For some projects this probably implies that they actually >> don't care too much about security. > > This also makes it difficult for us to ship packages that are maintained by a > one-man team. While there's something to be said about the maturity and > reliability of such packages, we shouldn't automatically disqualify them. > >> I also had the impression that one of the packages that has been a >> mojor problem last year (phpBB) actually nearly fulfills the current >> requirement proposals (at least to a greater extend than many of the >> smaller packages) but nonetheless has caused quite an amount of grief. >> Having bugs tracker, announcement lists and security mails might not >> always cover up for direct experience with the project itself. > > Excellent point. > >> So I would suggest that we enforce the current proposal in the all >> cases where we do not have a developer in our herd actively using the >> package. I think that any dev's of our herd that actively uses a >> package is probably a better source of information about the security >> of the package than the mailing lists of the project. At least as long >> as I assume that we care a lot more about the security of our servers >> than the average user. But I believe that's a safe bet. > > I don't actively use most of the packages I have been maintaining > (bugzilla, otrs, joomla etc). This means that we'd still have to drop a large > number of ebuilds. Perhaps that's not such a bad thing though. > > I've been toying with the idea of limiting Portage to a key set of web-apps that > are broken down into several categories such as CMS, wiki engines, fora, etc. > Personally, I don't think we need to ship every wiki package out there. Of > course, we'd need to tread carefully to avoid the appearance of limiting > end-user choice, which is where our overlay comes in. Any thoughts on this? > > -- > Renat Lumpau > all things web-apps > GPG key id #C6A838DA on http://pgp.mit.edu > Key fingerprint = 04AF B5EE 17CB 1000 DDA5 D3FC 1338 ADC2 C6A8 38DA
-- Gunnar Wrobel Gentoo Developer __________________C_o_n_t_a_c_t__________________ Mail: wrobel@g.o WWW: http://www.gunnarwrobel.de IRC: #gentoo-web at freenode.org _________________________________________________

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-web-user] Upstream requirements for web-apps Gunnar Wrobel <wrobel@g.o>