Hello, On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 01:40:08PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > I wanted to check your packaging but did not found any pristine-tar > branch as it is requested by Debian Med policy[1]. So you either forgot > to use the --pristine-tar option in the suggested > > git import-orig --pristine-tar <upstream-tar> > > call or you forgot to `git push --all`. If the first is true you can > easily repeat the step above and simply ignore the warning that the > upstream tag just exists.
I imported it again with --pristine-tar option now and pushed --all. > Once this is donw I could have a look at your packaging (if nobody beats > me in this ... which would be even prefered). I'd be glad if you could check it. But mainly, I need feedback on the two issues I raised in the first email about the main binary placement and ownership (see below). Thanks for your time. Pablo > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 04:28:48PM -0300, Pablo Lorenzzoni wrote: > > Hello ALL, > > > > I am quite happy with the packaging so far and I am about to bring it all to > > a state where I can upload it to archive. My first intention was to upload a > > dicom-server only package, as I wrote in README.Debian, but I am considering > > uploading the CGI interface along with the package... I have at least 2 > > considerations regarding that: > > > > (*) Main Binary placement > > > > The main binary (dgate) acts as a daemon, as a command-line interface and as > > a CGI interface. There seems to be no optimal solution for where to put it: > > > > (1) Either I put dgate binary in /usr/bin/dgate where daemon and > > command-line > > interfaces can live, but not CGI interfaces. > > > > (2) Or I put it in /usr/lib/conquest-dicom-server where CGI interfaces can > > be > > but is an awkward (but OK) place for a daemon and a really ugly place for a > > command-line interface. > > > > (3) Or I put it in /usr/lib/cgi-bin/conquest-dicom-server where it's super > > for a CGI interface but really ugly for daemon and command-line. > > > > (*) Ownership > > > > Webapps should generally be owned by www-data user and group. Right now, all > > files are owned by an unprivileged user (not www-data). While running as a > > CGI-interface, for instance, if owned by www-data, the binary would not be > > able to access the configuration file (at least not the same configuration > > files that the daemon is accessing). I can't think a way around that, unless > > using some permission trickery or maintaining two sets of config files, both > > with unpleasant consequences. > > > > What are your thoughts on that? > > > > []s > > > > Pablo -- Pablo Lorenzzoni (Spectra) <[email protected]> GnuPG: 0x268A084D at pgp.mit.edu/keyring.debian.org This message is protected by DoubleROT13 encryption Attempting to decode it violates the DMCA/WIPO acts -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
