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

Re: some comments on www.debian.org bugs



On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:26:27PM +0800, Andrew Shugg wrote:
> Frank Lichtenheld said:
>
> >      * #176437: www.debian.org: URL checker not checking
> >        Package: www.debian.org; Reported by: Larry Gilbert
> >        <larry@l2g.to>; 214 days old.
> > 
> > Has anyone the scripts that where used for this and can make them
> > publicy available? Or are there any reasons why we would not have
> > a URL checker?
> 
> This was being run by James Treacy IIRC but I don't know why someone
> else can't copy them and hack them up a bit.  I imagine the only reason
> they're not still being run by cron is because there was a problem ...
> 
>   http://www-master.debian.org/~treacy/urlcheck/scripts/

Thanks for the url, didn't know that they were there.

I've downloaded and run them. There seem to be some problem with
generating the .en files but otherwise they look o.k.

The results are available at
http://www.djpig.de/projekte/debian/urlcheck/

I will look into them and run the check regulary until someone
installs them on a debian machine.

> >      * #142908: related_links: Debian implements GNU, doesn't just take
> >        utils from
> >        Package: www.debian.org; Severity: minor; Reported by: Ben Finney
> >        <bignose@zip.com.au>; 1 year and 121 days old.
> > 
> > I don't really know if the statement in the bug is true. Opinions?
> > If it is true it should be simple to provide a patch, if not, let's
> > close the bug.
> 
> I think the bug is an opinion in itself.  =)
> 
> Wouldn't it be up to the debian-legal team (or the Debian Leader and the
> Technical Comittee) to determine this?

Hmm. Perhaphs we should really forward this, allthough debian-legal
seems not right, perhaphs debian-project?

Gruesse,
-- 
*** Frank Lichtenheld <frank@lichtenheld.de> ***
          *** http://www.djpig.de/ ***
see also: - http://www.usta.de/
          - http://fachschaft.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de/



Reply to: