Re: RFS: webhoneypot

[Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@mathi.uni-heidelberg.de>]

Hi,

"Christian Pohl" <whp@pohlcity.de> writes:
>>      W: webhoneypot: script-not-executable
>> ./usr/share/webhoneypot/update/update-templates.php
> Um....? it is executable

Does the update script modify files shipped in the package?

>>  - You don't seem to have taken Ansgar's remark into account ("I would
>>    not expect packages to install a virtual host configuration in
> /etc/apache2"...)
> No, I didn't
> Why? _I_ expect a virtual host configuration in the sites-available
> directory of apache (read: not the sites-enabled directory!). I hate it
> when I have to search the documentation to find the example config (like
> in squirrelmail or mediawiki or...). And the sites-available directory is
> for site-configs that are _available_ and I first look there. The site can
> simply be enabled with "a2ensite <sitename>".

There is a web application policy (still not official as far as I
know) that asks to provide web server configuration files that can be
included in /etc/package [1].  Many (most?) packages follow this
recommendation and in my opinion it is important to standardize this
(so one does only have to look in a single location).

  [1] <http://webapps-common.alioth.debian.org/draft/html/ch-httpd.html#s-httpd-register-httpd>

Providing sites in sites-available also ignores admin preferences for
naming files there.  I think this is important as they are also used
with utility programs such as a2ensite.  (And I myself like to use the
FQDN in sites-available.)

Please note that I don't maintain any web application packages myself,
so I am not too familiar with packaging them.

Regards,
Ansgar