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
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
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
Bug#468183: 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]
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
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
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
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]
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]
Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
Hi, @Guus: thanks for your hints. I can easily change that. @Nico: there is not much difference betweeen monkey and other webservers. There are already lots of other webservers in the repositories like mini_httpd, micro_httpd, dhttpd. Do they differ that much? Debian is always full of pride regarding the large amount of software-packages. So why not add this one? Please don't get me wrong - I got your point. I just want do understand your concerns. Regards, Thorsten Schmale On 27/02/08 21:29 +0100, Nico Golde wrote: Hi Thorsten, * Thorsten Schmale [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-27 16:19]: 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) How does it differ from lighttpd, thttpd or fnord? Why do we need yet another webserver in the archive? Kind regards Nico -- Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. -- THERE ARE PLENTY OF BUSINESSES LIKE SHOW BUSINESS THERE ARE PLENTY OF BUSINESSES LIKE SHOW BUSINESS THERE ARE PLENTY OF BUSINESSES LIKE SHOW BUSINESS THERE ARE PLENTY OF BUSINESSES LIKE SHOW BUSINESS Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 1F19 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
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]
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
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]
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]
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
Hi Thorsten, * Thorsten Schmale [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-27 16:19]: 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) How does it differ from lighttpd, thttpd or fnord? Why do we need yet another webserver in the archive? Kind regards Nico -- Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. pgpNcrz2GTkP4.pgp Description: PGP signature
