Yeah, you're right - dunno what I was thinking about... S3 isn't a subject to the normal permission laws. So, if browsing is a real big deal for our users - we need to address it differently.
The repo use case was always simple - to enable repository manager to install the packages. Web-browsing wasn't a part of it like ever. Which, honestly, makes all the sense for me. Cos On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 05:07PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > John > > > > We don't set +x bit on the directories in s3, so the listing doesn't work. > > There's nothing special about these permissions - it has just happened this > > way. We either can fix the permissions (easy to do), or do as Evans > > suggested, > > which might be ok in the interim, but is a hassle in the long run. > > > > If there's no objections, I can just go ahead and try to fix the permissions > > first. > > While I don't think there are any objections, I don't actually think S3 works > that way. Could you please try set +x and see it if it helps? It it doesn't we > can always do an indexing step and generate a whole bunch of index.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
