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. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
