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

Re: (semi) automatic check for broken links in package descriptions



Hi,

after improving my VCS/Url check scripts, i bumped against the following:



After I run my scripts some time, I seem to get firewalled, because I
get "connection refused" even for urls which worked previously.

[1] Tells me that [git|arch|svn|...].debian.org are all hosted on
alioth.debian.org.

Does anybody know who can I contact and discuss this issue?

Regards,

[1]
http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/FAQ#Subversion.2BAC8-arch.2BAC8-bzr.2BAC8-git.2BAC8-hg.2BAC8-darcs.2BAC8-CVS_repositories


Regards, Simon





On 04/27/12 14:17, Simon Kainz wrote:
> On 04/26/12 18:13, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <tiago@debian.org> writes:
>>
>>> I'm with pabs about integrating it to qa.d.o, sounds really helpful :)
>>> Btw, I've just checked a few links reported as error 500 and some seem
>>> to not present any problem. See:
>>
>>> http://sdl.perl.org/
>>> http://www.kuwata-lab.com/erubis/
>>> http://www.kuwata-lab.com/kwalify/
>>> http://www.pstoedit.net/
>>> http://www.rc0.org.uk/tdl/
>>
>> One thing to be aware of with link checkers is that there are some sites
>> that will return errors to bots but not to browsers.  I don't know if that
>> applies to any of these, but I see that a lot when running link checks
>> against my own web sites.
>>
>> There are also just a lot of transient errors in the web, either due to
>> temporary network problems or due to temporary server problems.  It would
>> probably be a good idea to cache results and only start warning if the
>> site was consistently unreachable over a longer period, like a week.
>>
> 
> Yes, you are right - I already thought about this, and also came up with
> a threshold of a week, which sounds reasonable to me.
> 
> I will improve my scripts and will pingback when ready.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> --
> Yay! I'm going to Debconf12!
> 
> 
> 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: