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

Re: RFS: webhoneypot

Am 2010-11-19 11:10, schrieb Ansgar Burchardt:

"Christian Pohl"<whp@pohlcity.de>  writes:
      W: webhoneypot: script-not-executable
Um....? it is executable
Does the update script modify files shipped in the package?
I'll have to check that. I hope not.

  - 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 [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).


thanks for the link. I will look at it.

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.)
okay, that is a good point.

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




Reply to: