On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> wrote: > > Thompson, David <dthomps...@worcester.edu> writes: > >>> “Content-Type: .gz” is what trips up “guix download”. What follows >>> “Content-Type:” should be a mime type and I suppose “.gz” is not a valid >>> mime type. Would it make sense for the HTTP client to be a little more >>> tolerant about this? >> >> No, upstream needs to fix their invalid Content-Type header. We've >> had this problem a few times, most recently with rubygems.org, and in >> all cases we've gotten upstream to fix it. Strict header parsing can >> seem like an issue at times, but it's really a very good feature that >> the rest of the world seems to ignore. [0] > > I wonder what a correct Content-Type header would look like in this > case. I would like to submit a helpful report containing what I got and > what it should have been.
In this case, application/x-gzip or application/octet-stream would be appropriate. Less specifically, the media type needs to match the syntax as defined by the W3C spec. [0] > However, this is independent from the patch itself where I’m using a git > reference. Ah yes, you are right. :) - Dave [0] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.7
