Gentoo Archives: gentoo-web-user

From: wrobel@g.o
To: gentoo-web-user@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-web-user] Upstream requirements for web-apps
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:33:37
Message-Id: 878xtmzrer.fsf@monastery.lucy.homelinux.net
1 Hi there!
2
3 During the last web-apps meeting we decided that we would like to
4 further discuss the upstream requirements a package needs to fulfill
5 in order to be added to the portage tree by the web-apps team.
6
7 The current proposition is specified here:
8
9 http://svn.gnqs.org/projects/gentoo-webapps-overlay/wiki/UpstreamRequirements
10
11 In my discussion with Stuart this morning I did realize that there are
12 not too many packages available that would actually meet these
13 criteria. So far we probably have around five in the portage tree.
14
15 The main blocker are the security requirements since many projects do
16 not provide special security contacts or mailing lists devoted
17 security. For some projects this probably implies that they actually
18 don't care too much about security.
19
20 It is clear that it is not appealing for the web-apps herd to care for
21 a high number of unsafe packages in the tree especially since
22 web-applications by their very nature should be much more secure than
23 many applications only used locally. A high number of security bugs or
24 a slow response to these will not shine the best light on our distro.
25
26 So reliable security information from upstream would help the web-apps
27 team to react in a prompt and timely fashion when a security issues
28 arises.
29
30 On the other hand we would probably be forced to reduce the tree to a
31 small number of web-apps if we enforce the requirements very
32 stringently which might not be very appealing to our users.
33
34 I also had the impression that one of the packages that has been a
35 mojor problem last year (phpBB) actually nearly fulfills the current
36 requirement proposals (at least to a greater extend than many of the
37 smaller packages) but nonetheless has caused quite an amount of grief.
38 Having bugs tracker, announcement lists and security mails might not
39 always cover up for direct experience with the project itself.
40
41 So I would suggest that we enforce the current proposal in the all
42 cases where we do not have a developer in our herd actively using the
43 package. I think that any dev's of our herd that actively uses a
44 package is probably a better source of information about the security
45 of the package than the mailing lists of the project. At least as long
46 as I assume that we care a lot more about the security of our servers
47 than the average user. But I believe that's a safe bet.
48
49 If there is no dev with an active interest in the package all we have
50 are the information from upstream. In this case I do believe the
51 requirements make absolute sense.
52
53 My .2 cents :)
54
55 Cheers
56
57 Gunnar
58
59
60 --
61 Gunnar Wrobel Gentoo Developer
62 __________________C_o_n_t_a_c_t__________________
63
64 Mail: wrobel@g.o
65 WWW: http://www.gunnarwrobel.de
66 IRC: #gentoo-web at freenode.org
67 _________________________________________________

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-web-user] Upstream requirements for web-apps Renat Lumpau <rl03@g.o>