Re: Unsupported? (Was: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol)
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there any reason why a Debian should spend resources to maintain > things that are not good enough for Debian? Debian isn't being asked to do any such thing. I've been thinking about doing this for a long time, one of the points in the proposal I'd written was that DDs would be discouraged from participating since they should be working on supporting the official archive. > For the "not good enough _yet_" there is experimental. experimental relies on DDs to upload, ftpmasters would probably reject packages with no Maintainer field (or a blank one). experimental is not the right place for this. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the?HTTP/1.1 protocol
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 18:57:47 +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote: > Now, unless we decide to, Debian is not meant to refuse any *new* package. Sure it is. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:41:25AM -0600, William Pitcock wrote: > > > Package descriptions should stick to positive aspects of the package, > > > and not try to draw comparisons towards other packages. IMO. > > A package description is intended for the administrator to choose which of > > a set of alternatives to install. A comparison to others, or being open > > about possible limitations, are very helpful to make this decision. > Use debtags for that. The description should describe the package (the program) to a user (system administrator) who has never met it before so that they have enough information to decide whether they want to install it. This description should not just be copied verbatim from the program's documentation. Policy 3.4 > > > It seems to me as if you are trying to get people to justify the > > > packages they want to work on. > > Yes, and that's very desirable. > Telling people to go away because you don't want to QA their package is > not desirable at all. Having a poorly QAed OS because not hurting people's feelings takes is more important than making sound technical decisions is less desirable. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
On fredagen den 29 februari 2008, William Pitcock wrote: > On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 18:47 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > Even there, it looks very much like other "very small" webservers, > > such as boa, bozohttpd, cherokee, fnord, lighttpd, micro-httpd, > > mini-httpd or thttpd. What does it do better than any of them? Or > > worse? Or different? > > Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others > like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many > options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different > httpd options, etc. > > Package descriptions should stick to positive aspects of the package, > and not try to draw comparisons towards other packages. IMO. You seem to think that being the maintainer of a package in Debian means marketing it among competing packages, trying to sell it to the user with fluffy sales talk. If so, you couldn't be more wrong. Being a maintainer means cooperating with other maintainers to deliver a free software distribution that is as good as possible as a whole. That means helping the user choose among similar packages by pointing out not only the strengths but also the limitations and weaknesses. -- Magnus Holmgren[EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Cc of list mail needed, thanks) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
Le Saturday 01 March 2008 17:44:01 Thijs Kinkhorst, vous avez écrit : > On Saturday 1 March 2008 17:20, Romain Beauxis wrote: > > It is also pointed out that there are central places, like security > > fixes, where having too many packages leads to too much work. Sure, but > > again, it's not related to choice, but to the overall size of the > > distribution. Here again, the solution is not "less choice", but "more > > people". > > It's unclear to me while the first solution is disqualified out of hand. > > I don't have a reason to believe that we will suddenly get lots more people > out of nowhere (even besides ignoring the lower marginal benefit that every > extra person adds). Hey, seems you're confusing the original issue. Indeed, here we have a potential maintainer proposing a new package, so it's exactly the converse: the package follows the new guy. So, yes sure, if we start crying about his very first package that's sure we won't "get lots more people out of nowhere"... Romain
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the?HTTP/1.1 protocol
Le Saturday 01 March 2008 17:37:40 David Nusinow, vous avez écrit : > > Basically, a package has bugs because the maintainer or upstream is not > > reponsive/available/..., not because there are too much *choice*. > > Um. No. We have lots of people. We also have lots of software. If we lose > some of the redundant software and keep the same number of people then we > have more people to work on the software that requires attention. It's > pretty simple. So, we basically *agree* that a lot of software makes more bugs. Whoa, that's *a* point. Now, unless we decide to, Debian is not meant to refuse any *new* package. Which means that the distribution will always grow, even without redundant software. All in all, yes sure, reducing choice will give a breath and reduce load, but clearly, it's only postponing the issue, and giving false answers to real issues. > This is, not coincidentally, one of the many reasons why so many people > flock to Ubuntu rather than Debian. Are you meaning to disqualify yourself with this kinds of trolls ? Ubuntu clearly concentrate on a core set of packages, and pulls out of debian the others. So I'd be delighted to see how ubuntu would handle this diversity, and have so many users without *our* diversity. Romain
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/01/08 10:38, Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] > > Who makes the decision as to how much redundancy is too much? And > is it crap just because it's redundant? > > For example, is micro-httpd redundant crap? There are no bug > reports, so how much Security & QA Team effort goes into maintaining it? Shame on me for not looking at the archived bugs. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA "The knife, the knife, the life of the wife is ended by the knife..." Stewie Griffin & Eliza Pinchley -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHyYf5S9HxQb37XmcRApVfAKCMy+b3k2bKA+XxUsRrKOVlN7iHxQCgsfUg YHgwL5sQcY9u+h8iEHIp1rI= =F49q -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
On Saturday 1 March 2008 17:20, Romain Beauxis wrote: > It is also pointed out that there are central places, like security fixes, > where having too many packages leads to too much work. Sure, but again, > it's not related to choice, but to the overall size of the distribution. > Here again, the solution is not "less choice", but "more people". It's unclear to me while the first solution is disqualified out of hand. I don't have a reason to believe that we will suddenly get lots more people out of nowhere (even besides ignoring the lower marginal benefit that every extra person adds). Thijs pgpz2oPxmzbqL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/01/08 10:14, David Nusinow wrote: > On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 09:43:56AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 03/01/08 06:51, David Nusinow wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote: Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different httpd options, etc. >>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html >>> >>> I wish we had some more of this sort of thinking in our own project and a >>> little less of yours. Maybe then we'd have fewer bugs in the packages >>> people actually care about and use. > >> However... it is perfectly reasonable for a distro to say, "We can >> not be all things to all people, so some limits have to be set, and >> some users/DDs will be disappointed." > > Which is pretty much what the message said if you bothered to read it. We > should focus on the quality of what we do support rather than shoving > everything imaginable in to the distro. Adding more redundant crap in to > the archive in the name of choice just increases the number of moving > parts, and thereby the number of bugs, that we have to deal with. Who makes the decision as to how much redundancy is too much? And is it crap just because it's redundant? For example, is micro-httpd redundant crap? There are no bug reports, so how much Security & QA Team effort goes into maintaining it? > - David Nusinow, who's a happy thttpd user and also doesn't see a need for >yet another small httpd And I'm a happy GNOME user who doesn't see the need for KDE, XFce, fvwm, ratpoison, ion3, etc, etc, ad nauseum. (Actually, I do see a need for small WMs, and even though I see no need for 18 of them, that's not my call to make.) - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA "The knife, the knife, the life of the wife is ended by the knife..." Stewie Griffin & Eliza Pinchley -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHyYZxS9HxQb37XmcRArVrAKDkGLOUjBw7zHrOD1xbD9KEMbNgxACeO1K8 B7nrKYfOihjz7OcwCg8uNDI= =iwgL -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the?HTTP/1.1 protocol
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 05:20:28PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote: > Le Saturday 01 March 2008 16:43:56 Ron Johnson, vous avez écrit : > > > I wish we had some more of this sort of thinking in our own project and a > > > little less of yours. Maybe then we'd have fewer bugs in the packages > > > people actually care about and use. > > > > I say we drop every WM & DE except GNOME, because that will simplify > > the distro, and lead to *much* fewer bugs!!! > > > > > > Obviously, what I just wrote is nonsense, and should never happen. > > Because FLOSS *is* about choice. > > > > However... it is perfectly reasonable for a distro to say, "We can > > not be all things to all people, so some limits have to be set, and > > some users/DDs will be disappointed." > > Sure. > > The fact is, I don't think we have bugs because we have too much choice, but > because we don't have enough manpower. > > So, previous mail was pointing a real issue, "lack of manpower and (hence) > too > many bugs", but giving a false anwser, "less/limited choice". > > Basically, a package has bugs because the maintainer or upstream is not > reponsive/available/..., not because there are too much *choice*. Um. No. We have lots of people. We also have lots of software. If we lose some of the redundant software and keep the same number of people then we have more people to work on the software that requires attention. It's pretty simple. Unfortunately, people in Debian often are more interested in reinventing the wheel than improving what's already there or *gasp* trying to innovate and do something new and different. Yes, there are valid reasons for providing options, but doing so makes it more difficult to do the important things that actually need to be done to produce a high quality distribution. This is, not coincidentally, one of the many reasons why so many people flock to Ubuntu rather than Debian. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
Le Saturday 01 March 2008 16:43:56 Ron Johnson, vous avez écrit : > > I wish we had some more of this sort of thinking in our own project and a > > little less of yours. Maybe then we'd have fewer bugs in the packages > > people actually care about and use. > > I say we drop every WM & DE except GNOME, because that will simplify > the distro, and lead to *much* fewer bugs!!! > > > Obviously, what I just wrote is nonsense, and should never happen. > Because FLOSS *is* about choice. > > However... it is perfectly reasonable for a distro to say, "We can > not be all things to all people, so some limits have to be set, and > some users/DDs will be disappointed." Sure. The fact is, I don't think we have bugs because we have too much choice, but because we don't have enough manpower. So, previous mail was pointing a real issue, "lack of manpower and (hence) too many bugs", but giving a false anwser, "less/limited choice". Basically, a package has bugs because the maintainer or upstream is not reponsive/available/..., not because there are too much *choice*. It is also pointed out that there are central places, like security fixes, where having too many packages leads to too much work. Sure, but again, it's not related to choice, but to the overall size of the distribution. Here again, the solution is not "less choice", but "more people". I think too that we should care about how many different similar software we include, but it's important to point out the real issues. Now, if you really want to see how choice is already one aspect of the system, just search through apt-get for "yet another" you'll be suprised to see how many packages are presented initially as "yet another foo-bar"... Romain
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 09:43:56AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/01/08 06:51, David Nusinow wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote: > >> Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others > >> like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many > >> options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different > >> httpd options, etc. > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html > > > > I wish we had some more of this sort of thinking in our own project and a > > little less of yours. Maybe then we'd have fewer bugs in the packages > > people actually care about and use. > > > However... it is perfectly reasonable for a distro to say, "We can > not be all things to all people, so some limits have to be set, and > some users/DDs will be disappointed." Which is pretty much what the message said if you bothered to read it. We should focus on the quality of what we do support rather than shoving everything imaginable in to the distro. Adding more redundant crap in to the archive in the name of choice just increases the number of moving parts, and thereby the number of bugs, that we have to deal with. - David Nusinow, who's a happy thttpd user and also doesn't see a need for yet another small httpd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/01/08 06:51, David Nusinow wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote: >> Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others >> like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many >> options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different >> httpd options, etc. > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html > > I wish we had some more of this sort of thinking in our own project and a > little less of yours. Maybe then we'd have fewer bugs in the packages > people actually care about and use. I say we drop every WM & DE except GNOME, because that will simplify the distro, and lead to *much* fewer bugs!!! Obviously, what I just wrote is nonsense, and should never happen. Because FLOSS *is* about choice. However... it is perfectly reasonable for a distro to say, "We can not be all things to all people, so some limits have to be set, and some users/DDs will be disappointed." - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA "(Women are) like compilers. They take simple statements and make them into big productions." Pitr Dubovitch -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHyXm8S9HxQb37XmcRAnnMAKCWRkcS3Y81U1dJ6Qn3d28DiQj1DQCgks6M NSnyyHAhp+HFwPshl7wWb2M= =G95B -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote: > Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others > like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many > options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different > httpd options, etc. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html I wish we had some more of this sort of thinking in our own project and a little less of yours. Maybe then we'd have fewer bugs in the packages people actually care about and use. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
* Sebastian Krause: > I like Debian *because* there are so many choices in the main > repository and I don't have to worry if a package is actually > well-supported when I install it, Sorry, you are kidding yourself if you actually believe that. Software and packaging quality vary greatly across the archive (but we tend to be pretty good at packaging quality, granted). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not
> create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards
> recruiting new DDs.
>
> Lets call it, say, 'community', 'extras', or 'unsupported'.
One reason why I prefer Debian over Ubuntu is that it does *not*
have that differerence between a supported ('main') and unsupported
('universe') repository. I like Debian *because* there are so many
choices in the main repository and I don't have to worry if a
package is actually well-supported when I install it, and I would be
glad if it would just stay like that. If a maintainer really takes
care of a package, I see no reason why it shouldn't be added even
when there are already several others with a similar feature set.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unsupported? (Was: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol)
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Paul Wise wrote: unsupported.d.n could be the right place for packages that are "not good enough for Debian (yet)". Is there any reason why a Debian should spend resources to maintain things that are not good enough for Debian? For the "not good enough _yet_" there is experimental. I don't mind if somebody else wants to register "to-bad-for-debian.org" but I also would love if people would discuss such issues on a mailing list of this domain. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
William Pitcock dijo [Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:41:25AM -0600]: > But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not > create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards > recruiting new DDs. > > Lets call it, say, 'community', 'extras', or 'unsupported'. > > The main featureset I see here would be: > * Anyone could register with it, and upload their packages. There > would be buildd's and whatnot, so for all purposes, it would be similar > to having packages in Debian proper. BTW, and on a much more serious tone: I do not trust anyone (hell, I often don't even trust myself! My hat off to our always kind ftp-masters) to check for proper licensing terms. And we cannot afford to have non-distributable or otherwise illegal content distributed from within Debian, however unofficial it looks like. -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
William Pitcock dijo [Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:41:25AM -0600]: > Clearly these packages are different enough to somebody if they are > going to the effort of packaging them. Perhaps they have a superior > configuration format or some other non-notable feature. > > But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not > create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards > recruiting new DDs. > > Lets call it, say, 'community', 'extras', or 'unsupported'. > > The main featureset I see here would be: > * Anyone could register with it, and upload their packages. There > would be buildd's and whatnot, so for all purposes, it would be similar > to having packages in Debian proper. > * If the package is good, it could be migrated into Debian proper > where it would receive proper security team and QA attention. > (...) Why not instead call it http://www.apt-get.org? -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
Hi, On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 10:33 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > But the user should not have to install 10 small HTTP servers just to > know what's the goddamn difference. That's extremely unhelpful from > us. We should tell the prospective user at a first glance why he wants > one httpd over another. I agree that this reasoning is fine. Sorry if I misjudged your intent. William signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
William Pitcock dijo [Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600]: > Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others > like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many > options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different > httpd options, etc. > > Package descriptions should stick to positive aspects of the package, > and not try to draw comparisons towards other packages. IMO. > > It seems to me as if you are trying to get people to justify the > packages they want to work on. If that is the case, then, I think > "because the person wants to use _this_ package" is fine. Infact, I > would go as far as saying that the wide latitude of software options for > a specific task is one of the greatest strengths of Debian. > > As such, I think the revised description is perfectly acceptable for > Debian. Unlike Guus', my argument does is not that we have enough small http servers - Even if features are duplicated, people will prefer one over another because the configuration is easier to grok (being «grokability» a merely subjective quality) or because they are implemented using their language or paradigm of choice. Maybe the same feature-set will be implemented in such a different way there is value in having different packages. I'm nobody to judge. But the user should not have to install 10 small HTTP servers just to know what's the goddamn difference. That's extremely unhelpful from us. We should tell the prospective user at a first glance why he wants one httpd over another. Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: Unsupported? (Was: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol)
I created an updated description. Please see below. One thing i forgot to mention earlier was the feature of logging the http requests directly to a mysql-database. I'm not quite sure, but I think this feature is not supported by most other webservers. Description: small http server Monkey is a small, fast, and easily configurable HTTP/1.1 compliant web server. It implements the following features: . * multi-threading * support for MIME * resume * virtual hosts * CGI and PHP * directory navigation * basic security features (denying access to certain URLs and IPs) * logging directly to a mysql-database instead of using logfiles. * translated documentation . Regards, Thorsten On 29/02/08 13:18 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, William Pitcock wrote: > > >But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not > >create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards > >recruiting new DDs. > > > >Lets call it, say, 'community', 'extras', or 'unsupported'. > > Please don't! > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > -- > http://fam-tille.de > > -- MY SUSPENSION WAS NOT "MUTUAL" MY SUSPENSION WAS NOT "MUTUAL" MY SUSPENSION WAS NOT "MUTUAL" MY SUSPENSION WAS NOT "MUTUAL" Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode BABF10 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Unsupported? (Was: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol)
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, William Pitcock wrote: > > > But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not > > create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards > > recruiting new DDs. > > > > Lets call it, say, 'community', 'extras', or 'unsupported'. > > Please don't! Why not? unsupported.d.n could be the right place for packages that are "not good enough for Debian (yet)". It could be a good place to merge packages removed from Debian for having no users (or whatever), uploaded to Ubuntu, Nexenta, Preventa, mentors, revu and any other Debian-based distros that have public archives. A while ago on -devel there was a post about automatic creation of rough packages using automatic software discovery and AI techniques for the packaging, such packages could be uploaded to unsupported. Upstreams often make Debian packages but don't upload them anywhere, unsupported could be a place for them. I've often wanted to package some cool software (see the list on my wiki page), but not maintain it forever, so I didn't bother and just moved on. Instead I could just upload to unsupported. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
Le Friday 29 February 2008 11:16:04 Thijs Kinkhorst, vous avez écrit : > There are several costs associated with having yet another package doing > the same thing: > * For the project in general, it costs archive and Packages file space, > build time, QA efforts just to name a few; You're mixing different things.. Storage is one, but I don't think a light package is an issue here, QA is another. For the QA effort, I'd rather prefer yet another package that is well maintained, for which the maintainer cares about RC issues, security fixes etc.. to a massively popular package unmaintained, and I have example on this topic... > * Especially true for network facing services: the security team needs to > support every package in stable; Again, the maintainer has a role to play, and can often help seciruty fixes quite well.. > * For the administrator: having a choice between a few webservers is good, > having to choose between a dozen that are hardly different just troubles > their view. You can have too much choice. Do you really believe in such an argument ? Well, administrators are wise people. In particular with http servers, first most of them will install apache without thinking of anything else, and I don't think the remainers will cry a river because apt-cache search httpd returns too many results. But, yes, the description needs to be relevant. Now, for the fundamental, since it seems no one returned to it, I found the webpage of the project well done, the code is hosted in a git repo, maintenance seems to be done. So, unless legal issues, if the proposed maintainer has a package well done and is willing to maintain it, I don't see what we're discussing here. Romain
Unsupported? (Was: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol)
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, William Pitcock wrote: But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards recruiting new DDs. Lets call it, say, 'community', 'extras', or 'unsupported'. Please don't! Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
On Fri, February 29, 2008 12:41, William Pitcock wrote: > But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not > create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards > recruiting new DDs. I have no intent of stopping you to create any third party repositories. > Sure in the Debian main repo, but if a community repo existed, it would > not matter. Definately, but I don't see the relevance because we are talking about a plan to include something the main repo here. Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
Hi, On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 11:16 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Fri, February 29, 2008 03:02, William Pitcock wrote: > > Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others > > like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many > > options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different > > httpd options, etc. > > The word "different" is key here. Debian wants to offer different options > to its end users. But please, only options that are significantly > different to what we already have. > There are several costs associated with having yet another package doing > the same thing: > * For the project in general, it costs archive and Packages file space, > build time, QA efforts just to name a few; > * Especially true for network facing services: the security team needs to > support every package in stable; > * For the administrator: having a choice between a few webservers is good, > having to choose between a dozen that are hardly different just troubles > their view. You can have too much choice. Clearly these packages are different enough to somebody if they are going to the effort of packaging them. Perhaps they have a superior configuration format or some other non-notable feature. But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards recruiting new DDs. Lets call it, say, 'community', 'extras', or 'unsupported'. The main featureset I see here would be: * Anyone could register with it, and upload their packages. There would be buildd's and whatnot, so for all purposes, it would be similar to having packages in Debian proper. * If the package is good, it could be migrated into Debian proper where it would receive proper security team and QA attention. * It would allow people who are having problems finding mentors to upload on their behalf the ability to still contribute to Debian's package collection. Which in turn, would probably eventually lead them towards a mentor. * It would give end users the ability to learn more about DAK and all of the other stuff involved in Debian packaging in a hands-on environment. * It would allow a greater latitude of options while not adding additional workload on the QA and security teams. * Community QA'd, meaning a hands-on learning experience for those who might be interested in joining the QA team. * As it is not an official Debian repo, but instead a community repo, Debian ftp maintainers would choose for themselves whether or not to mirror it, like backports.org. If the project is successful, it could later be offered as an option at install time to get more packages. > > We can obviously live with the costs that a package incurs, but it makes > sense only if there is something that offsets the cost: a clear added > value of this package to the distribution. That is something that must be > able to be justified when any new package is added. "Just because" doesn't > cut it. > Sure in the Debian main repo, but if a community repo existed, it would not matter. > > Package descriptions should stick to positive aspects of the package, > > and not try to draw comparisons towards other packages. IMO. > > A package description is intended for the administrator to choose which of > a set of alternatives to install. A comparison to others, or being open > about possible limitations, are very helpful to make this decision. Use debtags for that. > > > It seems to me as if you are trying to get people to justify the > > packages they want to work on. > > Yes, and that's very desirable. Telling people to go away because you don't want to QA their package is not desirable at all. William signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
On Fri, February 29, 2008 03:02, William Pitcock wrote: > Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others > like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many > options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different > httpd options, etc. The word "different" is key here. Debian wants to offer different options to its end users. But please, only options that are significantly different to what we already have. There are several costs associated with having yet another package doing the same thing: * For the project in general, it costs archive and Packages file space, build time, QA efforts just to name a few; * Especially true for network facing services: the security team needs to support every package in stable; * For the administrator: having a choice between a few webservers is good, having to choose between a dozen that are hardly different just troubles their view. You can have too much choice. We can obviously live with the costs that a package incurs, but it makes sense only if there is something that offsets the cost: a clear added value of this package to the distribution. That is something that must be able to be justified when any new package is added. "Just because" doesn't cut it. > Package descriptions should stick to positive aspects of the package, > and not try to draw comparisons towards other packages. IMO. A package description is intended for the administrator to choose which of a set of alternatives to install. A comparison to others, or being open about possible limitations, are very helpful to make this decision. > It seems to me as if you are trying to get people to justify the > packages they want to work on. Yes, and that's very desirable. Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote: > Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many options > for the same thing No, Debian is *about* having a *good*, free operating system. Having lots of choices is a side effect of Debian's organization, it's not what Debian is *about*. > Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others > like it? Er, if that's not explained, how in the world is any user supposed to make a choice among the options? If there's no difference among the options, why should we release all of them, adding to the security and QA burden of the distribution? > It seems to me as if you are trying to get people to justify the > packages they want to work on. No - only to justify the inclusion of those packages in Debian. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/28/08 20:02, William Pitcock wrote: > On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 18:47 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: [snip] >> Even there, it looks very much like other "very small" webservers, >> such as boa, bozohttpd, cherokee, fnord, lighttpd, micro-httpd, >> mini-httpd or thttpd. What does it do better than any of them? Or >> worse? Or different? > > Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others > like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many > options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different > httpd options, etc. Because when the long descriptions of many different "competing" packages all say essentially the same thing, then those descriptions are meaningless. > Package descriptions should stick to positive aspects of the package, > and not try to draw comparisons towards other packages. IMO. That's fine. But when it's something as relatively simple as a small httpd, you need to spell out specifics as to why I should use monkey instead of cherokee, boa, thttpd, fnord, etc. The micro-httpd description is a good example. > It seems to me as if you are trying to get people to justify the > packages they want to work on. If that is the case, then, I think > "because the person wants to use _this_ package" is fine. Infact, I > would go as far as saying that the wide latitude of software options for > a specific task is one of the greatest strengths of Debian. It's not "why should you *package* this s/w", it's "convince me that I should *use* this package". > As such, I think the revised description is perfectly acceptable for > Debian. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA "(Women are) like compilers. They take simple statements and make them into big productions." Pitr Dubovitch -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHx2uvS9HxQb37XmcRAr1AAJ4nDwIq9qtaFcqcFtaBV8yHC2SobQCeMkV3 8QEs/+nTqEO7w7vs3mvH4IU= =h3uZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 18:47 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Guus Sliepen dijo [Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:55:08PM +0100]: > > > Monkey is a Web Server written in C based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol. The > > > objective is to develop a fast, efficient, small and easy to configure > > > webserver. > > > Although it is very small and does not need much system resources, it > > > has a lot of nice features like Multithreading, Mimetype Support, > > > Virtualhosts, CGI & PHP, Basic Security features (Deny by URL + IP) > > > > The language the server is written in is not important. Use the debtags > > system to annotate the package with that kind of information. Also, > > don't use subjective wording like "nice features". There are also too > > much capitals in your description. I suggest the following: > > > > Monkey is a small, fast, and easily configurable HTTP/1.1 compliant web > > server. It uses multi-threading and has support for MIME, virtual > > hosts, CGI and PHP. It offers basic security features, such as denying > > access to certain URLs for certain IP addresses. > > Even there, it looks very much like other "very small" webservers, > such as boa, bozohttpd, cherokee, fnord, lighttpd, micro-httpd, > mini-httpd or thttpd. What does it do better than any of them? Or > worse? Or different? Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different httpd options, etc. Package descriptions should stick to positive aspects of the package, and not try to draw comparisons towards other packages. IMO. It seems to me as if you are trying to get people to justify the packages they want to work on. If that is the case, then, I think "because the person wants to use _this_ package" is fine. Infact, I would go as far as saying that the wide latitude of software options for a specific task is one of the greatest strengths of Debian. As such, I think the revised description is perfectly acceptable for Debian. William signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
Guus Sliepen dijo [Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:55:08PM +0100]: > > Monkey is a Web Server written in C based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol. The > > objective is to develop a fast, efficient, small and easy to configure > > webserver. > > Although it is very small and does not need much system resources, it > > has a lot of nice features like Multithreading, Mimetype Support, > > Virtualhosts, CGI & PHP, Basic Security features (Deny by URL + IP) > > The language the server is written in is not important. Use the debtags > system to annotate the package with that kind of information. Also, > don't use subjective wording like "nice features". There are also too > much capitals in your description. I suggest the following: > > Monkey is a small, fast, and easily configurable HTTP/1.1 compliant web > server. It uses multi-threading and has support for MIME, virtual > hosts, CGI and PHP. It offers basic security features, such as denying > access to certain URLs for certain IP addresses. Even there, it looks very much like other "very small" webservers, such as boa, bozohttpd, cherokee, fnord, lighttpd, micro-httpd, mini-httpd or thttpd. What does it do better than any of them? Or worse? Or different? Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 03:51:38PM +0100, Thorsten Schmale wrote: > * Package name: monkey > Description : monkey is a small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol Don't include the name of the package in the short description. Also, "HTTP/1.1 protocol" is more something for the long description. Description: light-weight web server > Monkey is a Web Server written in C based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol. The > objective is to develop a fast, efficient, small and easy to configure > webserver. > Although it is very small and does not need much system resources, it > has a lot of nice features like Multithreading, Mimetype Support, > Virtualhosts, CGI & PHP, Basic Security features (Deny by URL + IP) The language the server is written in is not important. Use the debtags system to annotate the package with that kind of information. Also, don't use subjective wording like "nice features". There are also too much capitals in your description. I suggest the following: Monkey is a small, fast, and easily configurable HTTP/1.1 compliant web server. It uses multi-threading and has support for MIME, virtual hosts, CGI and PHP. It offers basic security features, such as denying access to certain URLs for certain IP addresses. -- Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards, Guus Sliepen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Thorsten Schmale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: monkey Version : 0.9.2 Upstream Author : Eduardo Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://monkeyd.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C Description : monkey is a small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol Monkey is a Web Server written in C based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol. The objective is to develop a fast, efficient, small and easy to configure webserver. Although it is very small and does not need much system resources, it has a lot of nice features like Multithreading, Mimetype Support, Virtualhosts, CGI & PHP, Basic Security features (Deny by URL + IP) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
