Re: RFS: webhoneypot
"Christian Pohl" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> W: webhoneypot: script-not-executable
> 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
> 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 . 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).
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.