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.
--