[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol

On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 18:47 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Guus Sliepen dijo [Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:55:08PM +0100]:
> > > Monkey is a Web Server written in C based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol. The
> > > objective is to develop a fast, efficient, small and easy to configure
> > > webserver.
> > > Although it is very small and does not need much system resources, it
> > > has a lot of nice features like Multithreading, Mimetype Support,
> > > Virtualhosts, CGI & PHP, Basic Security features (Deny by URL + IP)
> > 
> > The language the server is written in is not important.  Use the debtags
> > system to annotate the package with that kind of information. Also,
> > don't use subjective wording like "nice features". There are also too
> > much capitals in your description. I suggest the following:
> > 
> >  Monkey is a small, fast, and easily configurable HTTP/1.1 compliant web
> >  server. It uses multi-threading and has support for MIME, virtual
> >  hosts, CGI and PHP. It offers basic security features, such as denying
> >  access to certain URLs for certain IP addresses.
> Even there, it looks very much like other "very small" webservers,
> such as boa, bozohttpd, cherokee, fnord, lighttpd, micro-httpd,
> mini-httpd or thttpd. What does it do better than any of them? Or
> worse? Or different?

Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others
like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many
options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different
httpd options, etc. 

Package descriptions should stick to positive aspects of the package,
and not try to draw comparisons towards other packages. IMO.

It seems to me as if you are trying to get people to justify the
packages they want to work on. If that is the case, then, I think
"because the person wants to use _this_ package" is fine. Infact, I
would go as far as saying that the wide latitude of software options for
a specific task is one of the greatest strengths of Debian.

As such, I think the revised description is perfectly acceptable for


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: