[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

Le Friday 29 February 2008 11:16:04 Thijs Kinkhorst, vous avez écrit :
> There are several costs associated with having yet another package doing
> the same thing:
> * For the project in general, it costs archive and Packages file space,
> build time, QA efforts just to name a few;

You're mixing different things..
Storage is one, but I don't think a light package is an issue here, QA is 

For the QA effort, I'd rather prefer yet another package that is well 
maintained,  for which the maintainer cares about RC issues, security fixes 
etc.. to a massively popular package unmaintained, and I have example on this 

> * Especially true for network facing services: the security team needs to
> support every package in stable;

Again, the maintainer has a role to play, and can often help seciruty fixes 
quite well..

> * For the administrator: having a choice between a few webservers is good,
> having to choose between a dozen that are hardly different just troubles
> their view. You can have too much choice.

Do you really believe in such an argument ? 
Well, administrators are wise people. In particular with http servers, first 
most of them will install apache without thinking of anything else, and I 
don't think the remainers will cry a river because apt-cache search httpd 
returns too many results. 

But, yes, the description needs to be relevant.

Now, for the fundamental, since it seems no one returned to it, I found the 
webpage of the project well done, the code is hosted in a git repo, 
maintenance seems to be done.

So, unless legal issues, if the proposed maintainer has a package well done 
and is willing to maintain it, I don't see what we're discussing here.


Reply to: