From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:10:21 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] package/imagemagick: change download url to github In-Reply-To: <87efueg91o.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <20170618074538.1237-1-bernd.kuhls@t-online.de> <877f09glcd.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20170619152921.6a37a345@windsurf.lan> <87efueg91o.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20170620141021.5ecdcd3e@windsurf.lan> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:04:03 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > >> > IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION = 7.0.5-10 > >> > -IMAGEMAGICK_SOURCE = ImageMagick-$(IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION).tar.xz > >> > -IMAGEMAGICK_SITE = http://www.imagemagick.org/download/releases > >> > +IMAGEMAGICK_SOURCE = $(IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION).tar.gz > >> > +IMAGEMAGICK_SITE = https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/archive > >> > >> That SOURCE name is a bit annoying. Is it a big issue that upstream > >> (re)moves the downloads after some time when we transparently fall back > >> to getting it from sources.buildroot.org? > > > I indeed hadn't seen the stupid name for the tarball. On my side, I > > find it a bit annoying that we have to rely on sources.b.o to make > > things work, so having upstream location that are working on the long > > run is much better when possible. But I agree that the tarball name is > > really silly here, and the risk of conflict with other packages is real. > > That is exactly my concern. So what do we do? Leave it like this so > s.b.o isn't needed or revert to get back a sane tarball name? > > There's pro/cons to both, but I think I would prefer to revert. Perhaps we could revert *and* talk to the upstream developers and ask them to keep the tarballs at the same place, instead of (re)moving them ? Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com