[Savannah-hackers-public] Re: [gnu.org #232165] Directory indexes at www.gnu.org

[Sylvain Beucler via RT]

Hi,

The FSF sysadmins had suggested we asked your point when I first asked
them about activating DI :) So the request is back to where it
started. Good :)

All the best,

-- 
Sylvain

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 03:27:51PM -0400, Patrick Brunier via RT wrote:
> Hi Sylvian,
> 
> Your story is clear. I've allready discussed it with the other
> webmasters. We decided to transfer this ticket to sysadmin. We can't
> make such changes.
> I personally don't have a problem with DI's.
> 
> kind regards,
> 
> Patrick Brunier
> GNU Webmaster
> 
> 
> > [beuc - Mon May 30 18:46:29 2005]:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Could you tell me what is the issue with directory indexes?
> > 
> > The sysadmins were actually in Cc of this request from the
> > beginning. After one month, I told them to activate directory indexes
> > anyway since the www.gnu.org webmasters apparently didn't care at that
> > time (address@hidden was in Cc as well -
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers-public/2005-
> > 05/msg00004.html).
> > 
> > Unfortunately address@hidden is often not reliable and didn't do
> > anything.
> > 
> > I think directory indexes should be simply enabled.  Our main concern
> > is people who submit support requests asking why their space is 403
> > forbidden.
> > eg: https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?func=detailitem&item_id=104022
> > An empty directory listing would be more appropriate. This
> > applies to all projects from nongnu.org, the ones under software/ and
> > also the place where translation teams webpages will be stored one
> > this issue will be cleared as well. This hence also applies to
> > projects not yet existing.
> > 
> > Unless you have good reasons to forbid directory indexes, I think it
> > would require less work to simply activate them sitewide.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > 
> > If you need to discuss this, please add savannah-hackers-public or
> > savannah-hackers-private so we can participate in the conversation :)
> > 
> > Thanks for the reply!