Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-web-user
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-web-user: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-web-user@g.o
From: Gunnar Wrobel <wrobel@g.o>
Subject: Re: Upstream requirements for web-apps
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:29:29 +0100
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?

Concerning the goals I have a question: How much of a problem do we
currently really have concerning man power in web-apps? If I look at
bugzilla, web-apps seems to be in pretty good shape or am I mistaken
there?

What is hard for me to judge is what kind of impact the security
problems had during the last year. What were the main problems for the
web-apps herd?

In the end security is always a compromise between quality, ease of use and
the actual man power available. I admit that I'm usually in favor of usability
as long as that is something we can provide with a good conscience. 

>
>> 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?

Depends pretty much on whether we decide to clean the tree and move
packages out. Once we get an estimate on what amount of package we
want to support for the main portage tree we could decide how to
distribute that to different categories.

-- 
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
_________________________________________________
Attachment:
pgp1N6GTNE7Lj.pgp (PGP signature)
Replies:
Re: Upstream requirements for web-apps
-- Renat Lumpau
References:
Upstream requirements for web-apps
-- wrobel
Re: Upstream requirements for web-apps
-- Renat Lumpau
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-web-user: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Upstream requirements for web-apps
Next by thread:
Re: Upstream requirements for web-apps
Previous by date:
Re: Upstream requirements for web-apps
Next by date:
Re: Upstream requirements for web-apps


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-web-user mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.