vsan...@foretell.ca (Vijay Sankar), 2013.09.25 (Wed) 00:44 (CEST): > Quoting Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net>: > > >On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:49:30PM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote: > >>On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 01:54:23PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > >>> just wanted to clarify some more. > >>> > >>> I have to say that webapps are still more than welcome in the > >>OpenBSD tree. > >>> > >>> They must pass a few criteria though: > >>[...] > >>> - they must be maintained, with someone willing to follow upstream, as > >>> there are lots and lots of security issues with most of them. > >> > >>Well, we currently don't provide packages for -stable. So people > >>running, say, wordpress, won't get a ready-to-use wordpress-3.6.1 > >>package. Telling them to rebuild it themselves would contradict our > >>"use packages" paradigm. > >> > >>Ciao, > >> Kili > >> > >>ps: sorry for bitching around wrt Wordpress, but that's something > >>used by some of our customers, and I'm pretty sure it's not appropriate > >>for a package. > > > >Bullshit. that's an argument FOR stable packages, not AGAINST webapps. > > I don't have much to contribute to the ports side of this discussion > since I am just an occasional tester. > > As a lazy user, however, I would like to say that having an OpenBSD > package even for "inappropriate" software like WordPress or > vtigercrm or others is still far superior than someone following > instructions from the WordPress or vtiger sites. > > For example, with vtiger, the OpenBSD package (before it was moved > to Attic) set directory permissions etc., properly and gave concise > instructions on what to do to configure everything. vtigercrm > instructions on the other hand make everything writable by www:www > and is simply not as well organized as OpenBSD documentation. Just > that alone makes having an OpenBSD package superior to not having > one.
+1 And even if you have to customize after pkg_add-ing it's easier with the package setting things up beforehand. Bye + Thanks, Marcus
