Hi
Good that you put this on topic again.
I wrote an apache policy some time ago. Some parts is not good but others
are. I mostly aim for configuration policy.
http://www.opal.dhs.org/involved/debian/apache/
It might be something useful there.
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:21:28PM -0500, Joey Hes
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 07:43:29AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> In the default configuration, web servers shall bind to localhost only
> (okay, that's are more general policy issue affecting all network
> services).
um, that's a completely separate Policy proposal; i don't think it helps
anyone
Joey Hess wrote:
> - Any others?
In the default configuration, web servers shall bind to localhost only
(okay, that's are more general policy issue affecting all network
services).
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 11:07:16PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:05:14PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 08:11:41PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > [I am only a by-stander in this discussion, but I have just a small
> > > technical point].
> >
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:05:14PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 08:11:41PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > [I am only a by-stander in this discussion, but I have just a small
> > technical point].
> >
> > I would like to suggest an other naming convention that fit better
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 08:11:41PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 12:43:52PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I'm not sure if there is any benefit to something standard like
> > /usr/share//defaultdocumentroot. Maybe there is, if some
> > program external to the web server wants
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 12:43:52PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> I'm not sure if there is any benefit to something standard like
> /usr/share//defaultdocumentroot. Maybe there is, if some
> program external to the web server wants to set up a later vhost for
> that web server. In any case, it would not
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 12:47:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Daniel Stone wrote:
> > I'm not sure I love the /debian-www/ bit; it's a bit aesthetically
> > displeasing, but to each their own. Good idea otherwise, however.
>
> I agree, it is not the prettiest name. I considered just /debian/, but
>
Hi all,
this is the last message that i am going to cross-post. We will
continue the discussion on debian-policy from now on.
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
> I'd prefer debian-policy.
Ok let's go for it.
> > We should consider 2 options to address this problem:
> >
> > 1) provid
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 12:43:52PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> > Even if it is not our task I would like to at least suggest users a common
> > schema on where to store vhosts and possibly in a future having a small
> > tool to handle them. It would make life easier fo
Joey Hess, 2003-12-06 21:20:19 +0100 :
> Maybe it's time to think about amending section 11.5. of policy (Web
> servers and applications) to address some of the problems with it. Here
> are the problems I know of:
[...]
> - If you use vhosts, you can only have one pointing to /var/www,
>so
Daniel Stone wrote:
> I'm not sure I love the /debian-www/ bit; it's a bit aesthetically
> displeasing, but to each their own. Good idea otherwise, however.
I agree, it is not the prettiest name. I considered just /debian/, but
it seemed more likely that would conflict with something on someone's
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> I am cross posting this answer but I think we should keep the
> discussion on one mailinglist only. I leave up to you which one you think
> is more appropriate.
I'd prefer debian-policy.
> > - Some web servers (eg apache2) can cooexist with other web servers
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 10:58:17AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Maybe it's time to think about amending section 11.5. of policy (Web
> > servers and applications) to address some of the problems with it.
>
> indeed it is.
It's long, long, long ov
Hi Joey,
I am cross posting this answer but I think we should keep the
discussion on one mailinglist only. I leave up to you which one you think
is more appropriate.
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
> Maybe it's time to think about amending section 11.5. of policy (Web
> servers and
Maybe it's time to think about amending section 11.5. of policy (Web
servers and applications) to address some of the problems with it. Here
are the problems I know of:
- Some admins want to tightly control which cgi scripts are available,
beyond merely picking packages to install. For example
16 matches
Mail list logo
