On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 08:03:14PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> > This would already reduce the load on the FTP, release and security
> > teams, and allow their members to do more useful things.
> And would lead many people to choose other distributions that offer more than
> merely core packages.
Salvo, I do appreciate how much you care about this package, but I don't
think the past, say, 15 messages of "lateral" discussion in this thread
have helped at all the cause of woof. I'm of course biased, but I've the
impression that the main points to be addressed are still the one raised
in my earlier post in this thread.
That is: considering that introducing a new web server in the archive
will potentially increase the work of the security team, it must be
worth. To verify it is worth or not there is only one way: perform a
thorough review of alternatives already present in the archive and point
out the unique features (of all kind, including user interface
difference) of woof with respect to them. Bonus points: mention those
unique feature in the long description as help for sysadms having to
choose woof among others.
I haven't yet seen either you, or the ITP-er, or anyone else doing that
and I've the impression you'll be getting nowhere until that is done.
/me and his last post on this thread
Cheers.
PS As a not very thorough personal suggestion of mine, and after a bit
of Googling, I'd start from the "webfs" package to document what more
woof has to offer.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Caposella .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature