[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RSS packaging feeds?

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 01:42:52 +0100
Michelle Konzack <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> wrote:

> Now the different feeds:
> Standard FEED is
> <http://devel.debian.tamay-dogan.net/rss.php?action=rss&what=crush>
> I have set up this to the last seven days...
> To get the FEED for a package use:
> <http://devel.debian.tamay-dogan.net/rss.php?action=rss&what=crush&package=apt>

The failed build message isn't ideal - the warning is too vulgar.
Probably stick to the standard message: maybe failed | maybe successful.

Also, in liferea, I'm getting a completely empty window - just the

There appear to be differences in the RSS content between these feeds
and the working ftp-master feeds like
(use wget on that one, then compare the XML).

You might be missing:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">

at the start and also missing a few tags elsewhere.

> and if you wan to know about a maintainer:
> <http://devel.debian.tamay-dogan.net/rss.php?action=rss&what=crush&login=codehelp@debian.org>
> <http://devel.debian.tamay-dogan.net/rss.php?action=rss&what=crush&login=kobras@debian.org>
> <http://devel.debian.tamay-dogan.net/rss.php?action=rss&what=crush&login=linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net>
> And for testing the  script,  is  it  possibel  to  get  accass  to  all
> buildlogs including the daily generated?  

All the build logs are in the same directory together - I can send you
a tarball if you want.

> Ehm, Neil, can you recommend a Stand-Alone RSS  reader  which  does  not
> require KDE or GNOME?  Some years ago I had a Mozilla  Pluging,  but  it
> does not more exist and the one I have found crash Iceape.

Liferea is Gtk with dbus and gconf but not the rest of GNOME. I haven't
used other ones.

Use the RSS-Validator from a previous reply in this thread:



and maybe compare the current output against the validator report for
other feeds.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpnJmKRqVb52.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: