[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: FESCo Meeting Summary for 2007-02-22



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.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]