On 14/03/16 13:12, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:15 PM, David Timms
> 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:
> 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.
I do not have power over upstream. I'm talking about downstream
packaging. I'd like to hear from someone with a legit answer, please ?
> Is the provided URL (which goes stale quickly, yet is
re-generate-able) OK ?
If it goes stale quickly, I'd consider it useless. Git was not
designed to support magical dancing URL's, that kind of instability
takes actual planning and work to inflict on the software repository
and on its users..
I think it's quite reasonable; they have the complete
content stored as
git diffs, they then do-not need to store a zip archive after every
commit ever made. Instead, just create one when someone asks for it...
I'm really asking how I should write my .spec Source0 url..
maybe I could write 2x lines (one that triggers the creation of the
archive, and the second which is the actual location) ??