Re: uscan download from sourceforge doesn't download what you expect!

2016-10-15 Thread Paul Wise 
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:

> Yes, this is known to me, but I did not report. The redirector /
> sourceforge make it hard to distinct identically named files in
> different subfolders unfortunately.

This was a bug in the redirector, I've added additional links
containing the full path to the files. I couldn't modify the existing
links because that would break all existing sf.net using watch files.
I added a direct link to the sourceforge-run redirector too, so these
should both work:

version=3
opts="uversionmangle=s/_/./g,dversionmangle=s/\+dfsg$//" \
http://sf.net/boost/ .*/[.\d]+/boost_([\d_]*)\.tar.bz2

version=3
opts="uversionmangle=s/_/./g,dversionmangle=s/\+dfsg$//" \
http://sf.net/boost/
https://downloads.sourceforge.net/.*/[.\d]+/boost_([\d_]*)\.tar.bz2

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: uscan download from sourceforge doesn't download what you expect!

2016-10-15 Thread Paul Wise 
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Steve M. Robbins wrote:

> Who can I contact to get https://qa.debian.org/watch/sf.php/boost/ fixed?

These days the reflector is just a proxy for the sourceforge RSS feeds:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/rss?limit=1000

So check if the issue occurs in their RSS feed before sending a bug or patch.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: uscan download from sourceforge doesn't download what you expect!

2016-10-15 Thread Mattia Rizzolo 
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:47:21PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Notice the crucial difference: the reflector is using 
> "boost/snapshots/master" 
> whereas the correct URL uses "boost/1.62.0".   The snapshots are pulled from 
> the branch tip and are NOT actual releases.  So the reflector is listing bad 
> URLs.  

This is really upstream doing something they should really not do:
version pre-releases the same as released stuff; also same filename…

> Who can I contact to get https://qa.debian.org/watch/sf.php/boost/ fixed?

look at the bottom of that page, there are links to the code; then send
a patch qa.debian.org's way (or try to report a patch-less bug).

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: uscan download from sourceforge doesn't download what you expect!

2016-10-15 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov 
On 15 October 2016 at 18:47, Steve M. Robbins  wrote:
> ... at least not for boost.
>
> I downloaded the latest release manually by following the links from boost.org
> to https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost/1.62.0/
> boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2/download
>

Yes, this is known to me, but I did not report. The redirector /
sourceforge make it hard to distinct identically named files in
different subfolders unfortunately.

I did too manually repackaged wrong tarballs by hand.

There is also possibly an upstream bug, because they name pre-release
snapshots identically to final released version number.

Regards,

Dimitri.

> Then I remembered that Dimitri had written a watch file to use the Files-
> Excluded facility.  So I ran uscan.  This leaves me the original download as
> well as the re-packed tarball.  Comparing the original download to my manual
> download indicated many differences.
>
> Running uscan with --verbose led me to the reflector page https://
> qa.debian.org/watch/sf.php/boost/ used by uscan.  The boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2
> link on that page leads to https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost/
> snapshots/master/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2/download
>
> Notice the crucial difference: the reflector is using "boost/snapshots/master"
> whereas the correct URL uses "boost/1.62.0".   The snapshots are pulled from
> the branch tip and are NOT actual releases.  So the reflector is listing bad
> URLs.
>
> Who can I contact to get https://qa.debian.org/watch/sf.php/boost/ fixed?
>
> Note: I didn't look, so I have no idea if this is a widespread problem with
> the watch reflector.  I'd suggest that people do a spot-check on their own
> packages to see.
>
> Thanks,
> -Steve
>

-- 
Regards,

Dimitri.