Re: [gentoo-web-user] Upstream requirements for web-apps

[Gunnar Wrobel]

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
_________________________________________________