On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:36:13 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Thursday 26 February 2004 8:30 pm, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Is an URL which contains macros still an URL? What do you do with an URL > > that contains macros? You can't cut'n'paste it into a browser, because it > > contains macros. So why include protocol, hostname and path in Source > > fields at all? How does the packager fetch a new release? Does he visit > > the web page from bookmarks? Or does he reconstruct a valid URL from > > the macros? > > I have always used the pseudo-URL form as a reminder of where to get the > source for PostgreSQL. It's not a true URL, and mine do contain macros. And > will continue to contain macros. Not that I need much of a reminder anyway, > since the URL in the spec is not how I get the source, since the real path > via scp is not the URL. :-) This is not about voting how to do it. All that has been pointed out is that reviewers appreciate ready-to-use URLs, which they can cut'n'paste into console or browser to fetch a tarball from upstream. It has been pointed out that some packagers tend to obfuscate URLs with macros to a degree that is far from smart, e.g. Source0: http://foo.bar/%{name}/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}rc1.tar.gz and that is bad taste and bad style. Or it turns out, the URL hasn't been updated or verified in a longer time and is not true anymore. --
