| 1 |
Hi Max, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Wednesday 23 July 2003 3:29 pm, Max Kalika wrote: |
| 4 |
> Personally, I like /usr/share/webapps. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
That's a good suggestion ;-) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> One question though. Why do all |
| 9 |
> ebuilds currently insist on making files owned by the web user (apache)? |
| 10 |
> Seems very wrong to me as the apache user is able to write to the |
| 11 |
> applications. It seems just like giving ownership to a regular user |
| 12 |
> account for other applications. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Because most web apps are badly written, and rely on write access to |
| 15 |
directories on the machine. Sorry - I just can't think of a polite way to |
| 16 |
put that ;-) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
As an interesting aside, because we run apache under the apache user (rather |
| 19 |
than a nobody user), it'll make the business of supporting multiple web |
| 20 |
servers quite a mess. I mean, if you install tikiwiki, which user should own |
| 21 |
it?!? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> > While I'm at it, I'm proposing that we create a new set of 'web-XXX' |
| 24 |
> > groups for holding web applications. For example, wiki engines would go |
| 25 |
> > under 'web-wiki', bulletin boards under 'web-forums', and so on. This'd |
| 26 |
> > make it much easier for users to find these packages. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I like it! |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I read your post about having proposed this before, but with no real response. |
| 31 |
Tell you what - if no-one else sends through any feedback, I guess no-one |
| 32 |
would really notice if we went ahead and just did this? ;-) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Best regards, |
| 35 |
Stu |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Stuart Herbert stuart@g.o |
| 38 |
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ |
| 39 |
Upcoming packages list http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/packages/ |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu |
| 42 |
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C |
| 43 |
-- |
Archives