On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 04:25:11PM -0500, Dan McGee wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Lukas Fleischer > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 05:02:40PM -0400, Dave Reisner wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:53:31PM +0200, Lukas Fleischer wrote: > >> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 04:29:28PM -0400, Dave Reisner wrote: > >> > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:12:44PM +0200, Lukas Fleischer wrote: > >> [...] > >> > > > > >> > > > RewriteRule ^/packages/([^/]{1,2})([^/]*(/[^/]*)?)$ > >> > > > /packages/$1/$1$2 > >> > > > > >> > > > Well, this will kinda fail when requesting "/packages/fo/foo" as it > >> > > > will > >> > > > try to rewrite that. Given that this rewrite rule is used to provide > >> > > > backward compatibility for broken AUR helpers only, I would say that > >> > > > this is ok, though. > >> > > > >> > > Rewriting /packages/fo/foo is bad, always. The anti-backwards compat > >> > > view would be that not rewriting /packages/fo would be "good". If > >> > > there's a solution that handles both, I say we go for it. Seems this > >> > > might be a little difficult though... > >> > > >> > Not sure if I understood you correctly, but my "rewrite PKGBUILD/source > >> > package" URLs only approach below already does that. It does indeed > >> > rewrite everything except for requests trying to "fetch" any of the > >> > directories containing the source tarball and the PKGBUILD (given that > >> > such a directory doesn't contain anything else). > >> > >> Then _I_ misunderstood. Carry on. > >> > >> > > > >> > > > Maybe we should even ignore everything but PKGBUILDs and source > >> > > > packages: > >> > > > > >> > > > RewriteRule ^/packages/([^/]{1,2})([^/]*/(PKGBUILD|.*\.tar\.gz))$ > >> > > > /packages/$1/$1$2 > >> > > > > >> > > > Opinions? > >> > > > >> > > -1 from me. Not extensible, but I'll make reference again to > >> > > aforementioned difficulty in a 'one size fits all' solution. > >> > > >> > Any reasons? > >> > >> Just because maybe in the future we'd have some other file in the > >> package directory that we'd want to make accessible. Do we plan to > >> expire the old URLs at some point (i.e. remove the redirect)? > I don't see any real reason to remove them until they cause us pain.
Ack. > > > Well, as I said before, those rewrite rules do only exist because of > > some broken AUR handlers (sorry, dude :p ) relying on the current > > location of the files we currently provide. The next release > > announcement will contain some notice that hardcoding the source tarball > URL is discouraged and unsupported. We might eventually remove the > > rewrite rules although there is no schedule yet. This is just a favour > > to all AUR helper developers :) > > You're being shortsighted. Bookmarks, old links in emails in both > inboxes and archived on mailing lists, etc. are all out there. Don't > break something just to break it when it takes one extra rewrite rule > line to make sure URLs at least redirect to the right location. Yeah, I must confess that I wrote that paragraph without thinking twice. Basically, I agree that there's no real reason to remove these rules some day. All I wanted to say here is that AUR helpers shouldn't reply on these rules being enabled forever. And I suspect that some AUR helper developers will do that if we say so in the release announcement (and do not mention that relying on them is unsupported).
