On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 01:52:25PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi James, > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 07:48:06AM -0400, James McCoy wrote: > > > > See also <http://lintian.debian.org/tags/vcs-field-not-canonical.html>, > > > > so maintainers should be aware of the problem. > > > > > > IMHO this is the wrong attitude. While I tend to respect lintian issues > > > of severity info you can not at all expect maintainers to just seek long > > > standing bug free packages for such things and upload packages just > > > because of this. > > > > My reason for pointing out the lintian check was that there exists a > > mechanism to inform maintainers that their Vcs-* URLs aren't canonical. > > OK. > > > The description for the the tag states that the non-canonical URLs will > > still work due to redirections, but that it would be beneficial to > > update them. > > What exactly is the benefit? The requests go to the proper host instead of being redirected to a different host. $ host anonscm.debian.org anonscm.debian.org has address 217.196.43.132 $ host svn.debian.org svn.debian.org has address 217.196.43.140 svn.debian.org mail is handled by 0 . It also avoids the possibility of problems with the redirection, which are likely very few and far between, but do happen as evidenced by this thread. > > Nothing about that implies that one needs to upload a new package just > > to fix this tag. It just means that if one happens to address that in > > the course of a normal upload, tools using their Vcs-* URLs will be > > slightly more performant and less likely to have transient failures. > > In how far will it be more performant to use anonscm? However much it costs to do the redirection. Cheers, -- James GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <jamessan@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature