From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59063) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dV3KB-00014V-Ma for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:08:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dV3K6-0002If-Rq for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:08:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:59982) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dV3K6-0002Ib-JZ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:08:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dV3K6-0006yT-53 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:08:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#27657] Acknowledgement ([PATCH] gnu: graphviz: Update to 2.40.1.) Resent-Message-ID: From: Marius Bakke In-Reply-To: References: <81625ecf.AEMAM5Q5T1QAAAAAAAAAAAOtUOAAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZZUFu@mailjet.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:07:08 +0200 Message-ID: <87o9sqk4qb.fsf@fastmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Arun Isaac , 27657@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Arun Isaac writes: > The source tarball URL shown on the graphviz download page ( > http://www.graphviz.org/Download_source.php ) is > http://www.graphviz.org/pub/graphviz/stable/SOURCES/graphviz-2.40.1.tar.gz > > Currently, our graphviz package is using > http://www.graphviz.org/pub/graphviz/ARCHIVE/graphviz-2.40.1.tar.gz > > Both appear to be the same tarball. I don't know why they have two > copies on the server. Should we change the source URL of our package? They appear have identical contents too: http://www.graphviz.org/pub/graphviz/stable/SOURCES/ http://www.graphviz.org/pub/graphviz/ARCHIVE/ ..and both return HTTP 200. I guess we can 'proactively' add both, but I have a slight preference for sticking with 'what works' until we know which one to use. YMMV :-) --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAlllTAwACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPrr1QgArDAt9QkseSKrbs7RINMdA8lreEpDA4uwtq7KeprH+JkRJzWwVumP/vae 0f5Nd13Tw7pG+oJpOprs5p8435wSYaL7oy+bKSkywrkbPCeq/irX/jWCkZTQGLyX OIZLQhn9+FVASkg1yDxZZ1EA5mHmdYA0CYRYLg7WVn94f43saToOq0ABDE0Hf+ev E1C1252JqiEb4cYIXbDr+9N1PR+kO79CnvvSHfRB0k/1/95UymObplTFu4bWuM5E nzYlDOfz/b/YHJ4V+ZScfRgQcCyZBzcz/emRcIqAC+xPKePalpoR4JLWq8wyat6z aayTPPJge/iEFvbALxjbnm331njHTw== =cJfC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--