From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:40:14 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] package/imagemagick: change download url to github In-Reply-To: <20170620141021.5ecdcd3e@windsurf.lan> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:10:21 +0200") 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> <20170620141021.5ecdcd3e@windsurf.lan> Message-ID: <871sqeg7dd.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: Hi, >> > 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 ? That is certainly worth a try. It is imagemagick though, so you never know. They seem to really remove all - except the latest in each series. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard