FESCo Meeting Summary for 2007-02-22
Ville Skyttä
ville.skytta at iki.fi
Tue Feb 27 07:14:08 UTC 2007
On Tuesday 27 February 2007, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Brian Pepple wrote:
> > Packaging Committee Report
> > * FESCo didn't have any objections to the Packaging Committee's
> > guidelines regarding:
> > SourceURL: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SourceUrl
>
> Hmm, I added a comment a couple of days ago to the page about the
> sourceforge section not being correct and that is still there. How can
> this be approved without that comment being addressed?
The FESCO meeting which approved it was on 22th, you added a comment on 24th?
Besides, that comment has been addressed over and over again, at least most of
it.
downloads.sourceforge.net (with the "s" in "downloads", and "sourceforge"
spelled as is, not "sf") is a different system from download.sourceforge.net
and dl.sf.net and dl.sourceforge.net which are all the same. And
downloads.sf.net is yet something different. See what DNS has to say about
those. It is not a coincidence that the draft says "use
downloads.sourceforge.net".
SourceForge uses http://downloads.sourceforge.net/foo/bar-1.0.tar.gz links
themselves, see the file releases view (appended with ?use_mirror=...
though).
Have you actually witnessed downloads.sourceforge.net (again, the one with "s"
in "downloads", and "sourceforge" spelled as is, not "sf") failing the way
you describe? I haven't, nor I remember seeing anyone saying that it would
have. I have seen it happen several times with
dl.sf.net/download.sourceforge.net.
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list