Hans de Goede 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? Regarding your comment : dl.sf.net seems to return many different IP addresses, and wget fails to contact some of them fairly often in my case. OTOH, I've just tried downloads.sf.net and it redirects me to Heanet or Switch (which are mirrors quite close to me) with a 302 response, and seem like a clean redirect script on sourceforge's side. Cool. So using downloads seems the best to me, but I'd like to use sf.net instead of sourceforge.net since it'll make URLs shorter, thus more of them will manage to fit in 80 columns. Do others have experience with sourceforge downloads? Doesn't anyone actually know someone from sourceforge who could clear this up, or simply try and contact them to get a final and official answer about this, instead of us "poking around"? Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora Core release 6 (Zod) - Linux kernel 2.6.19-1.2895.fc6 Load : 0.09 0.22 0.42 -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
