[arch-general] Upstream urls and package descriptions

[Karol Blazewicz]

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Rodrigo Rivas
<rodrigorivascosta at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Karol Blazewicz
> <karol.blazewicz at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I also found
>> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/libreoffice-sid/ - ???
>> language pack for LibreOffice
>> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/libreoffice-tt/ - TT ?
>> language pack for LibreOffice
>>
>> What's this?
>>
>
> I've checked it out of curiosity and it looks like TT is Tatar [1] and Sid
> is Sidama [2].
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatar_language
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidama_language

Yup :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639-3 helps decipher language codes.


On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas at archlinux.org> wrote:
> Am 01.08.2013 18:02, schrieb Karol Blazewicz:
>> Upstream urls:
>> I found that dozens of packages in the repos have an upstream url that
>> prints 'Page Not Found' in one way or another. Should I open bug
>> reports for these packages or does nobody care about it? I could also
>> check if the source is still available. If opening bug reports is OK,
>> should I limit creating the reports to e.g. 10 a day?
>> If I find a url that works, I will include it as a suggestion for the
>> maintainer.
>
> Creating bug reports is the way to go here.

OK.
Should I open a single report for the base package e.g.
libreoffice-i18n and list which split packages need to be fixed or
open a report for each split libreoffice-* package?

> It actually doesn't matter
> how many you create, the maintainers will fix them when they fix them.

Sure.
It's hard not to spam the bugtracker RSS feed since it provides only
10 or 15 last reports - no idea if anyone cares anyway :-)