I still don't know why PROJECT.gnu.org is a good idea, though.
I think the advantage is that it would provide a much shorter URL
for each GNU package. Also, I think sourceforge does this,
and some developers wished that savannah would do it too.
yup, xxx.sourceforge.net projects
I still don't know why PROJECT.gnu.org is a good idea, though.
I think the advantage is that it would provide a much shorter URL
for each GNU package. Also, I think sourceforge does this,
and some developers wished that savannah would do it too.
___
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Mathieu Roy wrote:
>
> > I think it should rely on Savannah database:
> > it easy to fetch projects account names and use them as
> > subdomain
> >
> > If a special export is needed (database dump, xml), a simple script
> > to do it ma
Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 10:17:22AM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
> > We'd need it to dump to a file that could very easily be included in the
> > bind data for .gnu.org.
>
> We could also have a wildcard A record that points *.gnu.org to the web
> server
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 10:17:22AM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> We'd need it to dump to a file that could very easily be included in the
> bind data for .gnu.org.
We could also have a wildcard A record that points *.gnu.org to the web
server. IIRC, apache can remap FOO.gnu.org, to
www.gnu.or
Mathieu Roy wrote:
> I think it should rely on Savannah database:
> it easy to fetch projects account names and use them as
> subdomain
>
> If a special export is needed (database dump, xml), a simple script
> to do it may be added in savannah/backend/gnu-specific
We'd need it to
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> A year ago we had the idea that each GNU package could have
> its own host name, XXX.gnu.org.
>
> 1. Has any work been done to implement this?
>
> 2. Is there any difficulty in implementing this?
I think it should rely on Savannah database:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 05:53:16PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> A year ago we had the idea that each GNU package could have its own
> host name, XXX.gnu.org.
> 3. Does anyone see a reason why we should not do this?
Care will have to be taken to make sure that a conflict case is handled
prope
