1 |
Renat Lumpau <rl03@g.o> writes: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 04:59:56PM +0100, wrobel@g.o wrote: |
4 |
>> The current proposition is specified here: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> http://svn.gnqs.org/projects/gentoo-webapps-overlay/wiki/UpstreamRequirements |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> In my discussion with Stuart this morning I did realize that there are |
9 |
>> not too many packages available that would actually meet these |
10 |
>> criteria. So far we probably have around five in the portage tree. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I'm still not 100% clear on rationale for requirements as outlined there. |
13 |
> As Gunnar pointed out, very few packages in Portage currently satisfy those. |
14 |
> Perhaps it would make sense for us to start by outlining the goals of our |
15 |
> upstream requirements (e.g., reliable contact in case of security bugs) and then |
16 |
> decide how to best achieve them? |
17 |
> |
18 |
>> The main blocker are the security requirements since many projects do |
19 |
>> not provide special security contacts or mailing lists devoted |
20 |
>> security. For some projects this probably implies that they actually |
21 |
>> don't care too much about security. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> This also makes it difficult for us to ship packages that are maintained by a |
24 |
> one-man team. While there's something to be said about the maturity and |
25 |
> reliability of such packages, we shouldn't automatically disqualify them. |
26 |
> |
27 |
>> I also had the impression that one of the packages that has been a |
28 |
>> mojor problem last year (phpBB) actually nearly fulfills the current |
29 |
>> requirement proposals (at least to a greater extend than many of the |
30 |
>> smaller packages) but nonetheless has caused quite an amount of grief. |
31 |
>> Having bugs tracker, announcement lists and security mails might not |
32 |
>> always cover up for direct experience with the project itself. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Excellent point. |
35 |
> |
36 |
>> So I would suggest that we enforce the current proposal in the all |
37 |
>> cases where we do not have a developer in our herd actively using the |
38 |
>> package. I think that any dev's of our herd that actively uses a |
39 |
>> package is probably a better source of information about the security |
40 |
>> of the package than the mailing lists of the project. At least as long |
41 |
>> as I assume that we care a lot more about the security of our servers |
42 |
>> than the average user. But I believe that's a safe bet. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> I don't actively use most of the packages I have been maintaining |
45 |
> (bugzilla, otrs, joomla etc). This means that we'd still have to drop a large |
46 |
> number of ebuilds. Perhaps that's not such a bad thing though. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> I've been toying with the idea of limiting Portage to a key set of web-apps that |
49 |
> are broken down into several categories such as CMS, wiki engines, fora, etc. |
50 |
> Personally, I don't think we need to ship every wiki package out there. Of |
51 |
> course, we'd need to tread carefully to avoid the appearance of limiting |
52 |
> end-user choice, which is where our overlay comes in. Any thoughts on this? |
53 |
> |
54 |
> -- |
55 |
> Renat Lumpau |
56 |
> all things web-apps |
57 |
> GPG key id #C6A838DA on http://pgp.mit.edu |
58 |
> Key fingerprint = 04AF B5EE 17CB 1000 DDA5 D3FC 1338 ADC2 C6A8 38DA |
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 |
_________________________________________________ |