Re: RFS: webhoneypot
Am 2010-11-19 11:10, schrieb Ansgar Burchardt:
"Christian Pohl"<email@example.com> 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 . 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.