[arch-general] Upstream urls and package descriptions

[Allan McRae]

On 02/08/13 02:02, Karol Blazewicz wrote:
> Intro:
> Below are some questions / ideas I came up with. I simply don't know
> if anyone cares about these issues, whether there are rules or at
> least suggestions how to best deal with them or is it up to the
> maintainer.
> 
> I've heard there were some plans wrt a build server that would
> periodically check if packages still build. Any news?

I see I have just received word that a proof-of-concept for the idea is
available.  So there is some progress.

> If there indeed are issues that need fixing, should I file the
> low-priority bugs now? Summer vacation may not be the best time for
> Arch-related work so maybe I should wait until September so that
> people are back from holidays?

I'm fairly sure summer holidays are in the end of December/start of
January, so that should not be an issue! :D


> 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.

If there are bugs, open bugs.  The bug tracker is for tracking bugs...
It does not matter how many are opened. Even better if you provide a
solution in the bug.

We can close bugs far quicker than you can create them, so that will
never be a real issue.

> For example for
> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/i686/autocutsel/ neither
> the url nor the source is available, but I found what seems like a
> perfectly good autocutsel website: http://www.nongnu.org/autocutsel/
> with a link to the source.

File a bug.

> Some projects seem to be gone for good e.g.
> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/apricots/ even grabs the
> sources from ftp.archlinux.org
> https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/plain/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/apricots
> Would http://freecode.com/projects/apricots be a better website? It
> has some info e.g. that last development is from a decade ago, a
> screenshot, a longer description ...

I'd say such packages should just be dropped altogether.

> What about urls that point to a redirect? Is it OK only if the
> redirect is automatic and otherwise upstream urls should be updated if
> they moved e.g. from SourceForge to GoogleCode?
> An example: https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/junit/ has
> http://junit.sourceforge.net/ as the upstream url, but when you go
> there, it says 'Please see our main site at junit.org'.

Even an automatic redirect might not be permanent, so I think these
should be changed.

> Is there a rule that 'www' should be omitted or that it should be included?
> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/alsa-lib/ :
> http://www.alsa-project.org
> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/alsa-firmware/ :
> http://alsa-project.org/

If both are correct, it does not matter.

About here I got bored...