On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 03:41:50PM -0500, Alex Griffin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016, at 09:33 AM, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > Alex, how is Q-Z coming along? I can finish it quickly later today if
> > you haven't started yet.
>
> I apologize, I haven't started it yet... So go ahead if you want to
> fi
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016, at 09:33 AM, Leo Famulari wrote:
> Alex, how is Q-Z coming along? I can finish it quickly later today if
> you haven't started yet.
I apologize, I haven't started it yet... So go ahead if you want to
finish it up, else I can still do it tomorrow when I will have time for
it a
Andreas Enge skribis:
> Hello Leo,
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:33:53AM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
>> The attached patch updates the URLs for the failing Sourceforge
>> packages, A-P.
>
> I do not think this kind of trivial patch (trivial in complexity, not in
> the amount of work required!) do
Hello Leo,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:33:53AM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> The attached patch updates the URLs for the failing Sourceforge
> packages, A-P.
I do not think this kind of trivial patch (trivial in complexity, not in
the amount of work required!) does not warrant a review, you may sim
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:58:00PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> I can begin updating the URLs.
The attached patch updates the URLs for the failing Sourceforge
packages, A-P.
Alex, how is Q-Z coming along? I can finish it quickly later today if
you haven't started yet.
>From 201895c39f12de62be1cf1
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 01:30:47PM -0500, Alex Griffin wrote:
> I'll start by claiming Q-Z, and maybe I can do more than that depending
> on how things go.
Thank you!
I'll do A-F next.
Hey Leo,
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016, at 03:58 PM, Leo Famulari wrote:
> I've attached the list of bad packages, which includes the ones I've
> done so far. If you want to fix some of them, please pick a section of
> the alphabet and reply to claim it, so we don't duplicate effort.
I'll start by claimin
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 11:40:24PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> I read claims on the #guix IRC channel that the URLs appear to change
> over time. Has this been confirmed yet? It would be sad if you or
> others waste time on changing the URLs only to have them change yet
> again.
I claim that
Leo Famulari writes:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:58:00PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
>> I can begin updating the URLs. It will be a good chance to stretch my
>> Guile a little bit. But, feel free to beat me to it :)
>
> There is just enough variety in the new URLs that I don't know how to
> appr
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:58:00PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> I can begin updating the URLs. It will be a good chance to stretch my
> Guile a little bit. But, feel free to beat me to it :)
There is just enough variety in the new URLs that I don't know how to
approach it programmatically. So, I'm
Alex Griffin skribis:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016, at 12:58 PM, Leo Famulari wrote:
>> I contacted SourceForge to ask about this. They said that they did have
>> an outage that lasted for ~23 hours but that, otherwise, there has been
>> no change to the URLs from which they serve things.
>>
>> Is any
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:58:00PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> Alex Kost helpfully provided a Guile script to return all packages that
> download from SourceForge (attached).
As always, I forgot to attach it.
(use-modules
(ice-9 regex)
(ice-9 format)
(srfi srfi-2)
(gnu packages)
(guix packag
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 01:00:50AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Apparently SourceForge did a massive URL change, *and*, for extra fun,
> failing mirrors return 200 instead of 404.
They are returning 404 again.
Alex Kost helpfully provided a Guile script to return all packages that
download fro
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016, at 12:58 PM, Leo Famulari wrote:
> I contacted SourceForge to ask about this. They said that they did have
> an outage that lasted for ~23 hours but that, otherwise, there has been
> no change to the URLs from which they serve things.
>
> Is anyone still noticing problems on
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:28:13AM -0500, Alex Griffin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016, at 05:16 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > Alex Griffin skribis:
> > > Their Twitter feed[1] says that they're investigating issues at the
> > > moment, so it's possible that all we need to do is wait.
> >
> > OK,
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016, at 05:16 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Alex Griffin skribis:
> > Their Twitter feed[1] says that they're investigating issues at the
> > moment, so it's possible that all we need to do is wait.
>
> OK, we’ll see.
So it has been a few days now, and it looks like I was probabl
Hi,
Alex Griffin skribis:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016, at 06:00 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Apparently SourceForge did a massive URL change, *and*, for extra fun,
>> failing mirrors return 200 instead of 404.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Would anyone like to investigate? :-)
>
> Their Twitter feed[1] says
Hello,
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016, at 06:00 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Apparently SourceForge did a massive URL change, *and*, for extra fun,
> failing mirrors return 200 instead of 404.
>
> [...]
>
> Would anyone like to investigate? :-)
Their Twitter feed[1] says that they're investigating issue
Hello,
Apparently SourceForge did a massive URL change, *and*, for extra fun,
failing mirrors return 200 instead of 404.
At first sight we need at least the mirror URL update in commit
cd4c41fdcf469524161fbbec58c2756f36bcef56.
But that’s not enough. It seems that URLs now have the form:
/PAC
19 matches
Mail list logo
