On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Sérgio Basto <sergio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Seg, 2016-03-14 at 08:54 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: >> On 03/13/2016 08:12 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> > >> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:15 PM, David Timms <dtimms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi, I've worked out what seemed to be a correct URL for for >> > > rakarrack >> > > spec, now that it is accessed via git within the sf website: >> > > >> > > I couldn't work out how to fit the sourceforce git URLs from: >> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.ne >> > > t >> > > or >> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Se >> > > rvices >> > > >> > > to suit. Any ideas for a standard way to handle sf git snapshots >> > > ? >> > Move them to github. Seriously. Sourceforge has been playing >> > various >> > games to avoid accessing content without going through their >> > adveritising functions since they were first founded, and I've >> > found >> > no reason to work with any project hosted there >> > since..... checking >> > old notes, not since 2009. > > Devshare (I think it is called devshare) was a mistake and only happens > on windows, and all the fault can't be impute to sf.net. sf.net was and > still is an important organization that support open source and free > software . I didn't mention Devshare. I referred to the confusing and difficult to predict mishmosh of redirects, used to force developers like myself to click thorugh at least one page of undesired graphical advertisement to get a working URL for the actual source code. -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
