hi, On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:24:40PM +0000, Beaky, The WACS Man wrote: > Sean > > it to another list). but at the same time, please no more links > > to "example" sites! > > Sorry, I am not intending any upset. > > The example site is completely genuine, only contains material licensed > under the creative commons by attribution 3.0 license and is actually > running the WACS software and basically nothing else. It is not some > devious front for a commercial organisation I assure you. It is 100% > genuine and true to the ideals of free software. I'm sure it is... but like i said i'm not making any moral judgement calls here, nor am i questioning your authenticity as a member of the free software community. however, i don't want "adult" url's (okay, in your case it was just a domainname, but still) appearing in the list archives and possibly endangering the standing of the machine hosting it (which also hosts version control repos, etc) when it comes to search results, content filtering proxies, etc. it also distracts the topic away from any actual technical issues that you might want to discuss. can we leave it at that? > OK, then it's obviously not quite as I was led to believe, but that's > fine, just let me know who I should be talking to. I do however feel > that due to the nature of the subject having a second person go over it > will be distinctly advantageous in this case. yes it probably would. like andrew and i have said, try on debian-mentors too, as there's a larger pool of people there who might be willing to sponsor the application. you can also read up on the debian wiki about becoming a "Debian Maintainer" (different from "Debian Developer") to take over official maintenance of the package after you find a sponsor. > For instance, as things stand, I protect almost all files with mode 660 > to the group of package administrators which causes lintian to get very > upset. I think that is the right thing to do and that the icons, > thumbnails and documentation should not be available for all users on > the system to read. That obviously runs counter to the normal > permissions mentality reflected in the lintian process. it does seem a bit wierd to have files 640/root:www-data, since the users could just fetch the URL's instead, or download the deb and extract the files themselves. if you're talking about *uploaded* content i think that's a different matter though. > Given it's one of the biggest markets on the internet, I'm surprised > that no one has addressed this arena with free software previously (at > least not to my knowledge). I know a great many people sweep their > activities in this area under the carpet, but I really hope someone will > have the courage to come forward and help. i'll just echo what andrew said. sean
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature