GNU bug report logs -
#10157
broken links at http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/
Previous Next
Reported by: Adam Spiers <gnu <at> adamspiers.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:51:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Done: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 10157 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 10157 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
bug-automake <at> gnu.org:
bug#10157; Package
automake.
(Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:51:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Adam Spiers <gnu <at> adamspiers.org>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-automake <at> gnu.org.
(Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:51:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/ has several broken links, all
pointing to sources.redhat.com.
It seems that related issues were flagged before:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2011-07/msg00042.html
I had to guess my way to https://lists.gnu.org in order to find the lists.
Information forwarded
to
bug-automake <at> gnu.org:
bug#10157; Package
automake.
(Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:06:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Adam, thanks for the report.
On Monday 28 November 2011, Adam Spiers wrote:
> http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/ has several broken links, all
> pointing to sources.redhat.com.
>
> It seems that related issues were flagged before:
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2011-07/msg00042.html
>
> I had to guess my way to https://lists.gnu.org in order to find the
> lists.
>
The attached patch should fix the issue. This is the first patch I
write for the Automake web page, and the first one for a CVS-based
repository, so I'd really like a review and an ACK before committing
it.
Regards,
Stefano
[diff.txt (text/plain, inline)]
Index: automake.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/automake/automake/automake.html,v
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -r1.15 automake.html
18a19
> <li><a href="#mailinglists" name="TOCmailinglists">Mailing Lists</a>
32,35d32
< See the <a href="http://sources.redhat.com/automake/">GNU Automake
< home page</a> for more information (including <a href="http://sources.redhat.com/automake/#mailing-lists">mailing lists</a>, and the manual
< <a href="http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.html">on-line</a> or in
< <a href="http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.pdf">PDF</a>).
68,77c65,125
< The Automake manual can be found on the <a
< href="http://sources.redhat.com/automake/">GNU Automake home page</a>
< <a href="http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.html">on-line</a> or in
< <a href="http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.pdf">PDF</a>).
< Automake documentation can also be found in several formats at
< <a href="/software/automake/manual/index.html">
< http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/</a>.
< You may also find more information about Automake by looking at your
< local documentation. For example, you might use <em>info automake</em> at the
< shell prompt.
---
> The Automake manual can be read
> <a href="/software/automake/manual/automake.html">on-line</a> or downloaded
> in <a href="http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.pdf">PDF format</a>;
> also, <a href="/software/automake/manual/index.html">more formats</a>
> are offered for download or on-line reading. If you have installed
> Automake on your system, you may also find more information about it
> by looking at your local documentation; for example you might use
> <em>info automake</em> at the shell prompt.
> </p>
>
> <h3><a href="#TOCmailinglists" name="mailinglists">Mailing Lists</a></h3>
>
> <p>
> Automake has several public mailing lists, each of which is archive.
> </p>
>
> <p>
> For general Automake discussions, use
> <a href="mailto:automake <at> gnu.org">automake <at> gnu.org</a>
> (<a href="http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/">archives</a>
> and
> <a href="http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/automake/">subscription</a>).
> </p>
>
> <p>
> If you have a patch for Automake, please send the it to
> <a href="mailto:automake-patches <at> gnu.org">automake-patches <at> gnu.org</a>
> (<a href="http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/">archives</a> and
> <a href="http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/automake-patches/">subscription</a>).
> The <samp>HACKING</samp> file present in the Automake git repository should
> explain how to properly prepare, format and post a patch.
> </p>
>
> <p>
> Bug reports can be emailed to
> <a href="mailto:bug-automake <at> gnu.org">bug-automake <at> gnu.org</a>
> (<a href="http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-automake/">archives</a>
> and
> <a href="http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-automake/">subscription</a>).
> Before submitting a bug report, please read the
> <a href="manual/html_node/Reporting-Bugs.html">Bug Reporting</a>
> section of the manual.
> </p>
>
> <p>
> You can subscribe to any Automake mailing list via the associated web
> interfaces, linked above. Or you can send an empty mail with a
> <i>Subject:</i> header line of just "subscribe" to the relevant
> <i>-request</i> list. For example, to subscribe yourself to the
> bug-automake list, you would send mail to <a
> href="mailto:bug-automake-request <at> gnu.org">bug-automake-request <at> gnu.org</a>
> with no body and a <i>Subject:</i> header line of just "subscribe".
> </p>
>
> <p>
> It has been necessary to moderate the GNU Automake mailing lists to
> prevent the flood of spam. Postings to the lists are held for release
> by the list moderator. Sometimes the moderators are unavailable for
> brief periods of time. Please be patient when posting. If you
> don't see the message in the list archive an hour or so after having
> sent it, then it did not get posted.
119,120c167,168
< Copyright © 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010
< Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
---
> Copyright © 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,
> 2010, 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
131c179
< $Date: 2010/11/02 21:23:33 $
---
> $Date: 2011/12/04 12:03:54 $
Information forwarded
to
bug-automake <at> gnu.org:
bug#10157; Package
automake.
(Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:06:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Added tag(s) patch.
Request was from
Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
(Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:07:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-automake <at> gnu.org:
bug#10157; Package
automake.
(Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:30:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #16 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Sunday 04 December 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> Hi Adam, thanks for the report.
>
> On Monday 28 November 2011, Adam Spiers wrote:
> > http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/ has several broken links, all
> > pointing to sources.redhat.com.
> >
> > It seems that related issues were flagged before:
> >
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2011-07/msg00042.html
> >
> > I had to guess my way to https://lists.gnu.org in order to find the
> > lists.
> >
> The attached patch should fix the issue. This is the first patch I
> write for the Automake web page, and the first one for a CVS-based
> repository, so I'd really like a review and an ACK before committing
> it.
>
Ping? I will push this by tomorrow if there is no review by then, since
having a suboptimal and/or confusing wording on the main webpage is
still better that having lots of broken hyperlinks there -- IMO much,
much better.
Regards,
Stefano
Information forwarded
to
bug-automake <at> gnu.org:
bug#10157; Package
automake.
(Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:30:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-automake <at> gnu.org:
bug#10157; Package
automake.
(Mon, 05 Dec 2011 23:20:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #22 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Stefano Lattarini
<stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 04 December 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> Hi Adam, thanks for the report.
>>
>> On Monday 28 November 2011, Adam Spiers wrote:
>> > http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/ has several broken links, all
>> > pointing to sources.redhat.com.
>> >
>> > It seems that related issues were flagged before:
>> >
>> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2011-07/msg00042.html
>> >
>> > I had to guess my way to https://lists.gnu.org in order to find the
>> > lists.
>> >
>> The attached patch should fix the issue. This is the first patch I
>> write for the Automake web page, and the first one for a CVS-based
>> repository, so I'd really like a review and an ACK before committing
>> it.
>>
> Ping? I will push this by tomorrow if there is no review by then, since
> having a suboptimal and/or confusing wording on the main webpage is
> still better that having lots of broken hyperlinks there -- IMO much,
> much better.
I can't usefully review HTML within a diff, sorry. If you
attached the new HTML I could probably have a quick look
in my browser.
Information forwarded
to
bug-automake <at> gnu.org:
bug#10157; Package
automake.
(Mon, 05 Dec 2011 23:20:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-automake <at> gnu.org:
bug#10157; Package
automake.
(Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:13:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #28 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Adam.
On Tuesday 06 December 2011, Adam Spiers wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Stefano Lattarini
> > Ping? I will push this by tomorrow if there is no review by then, since
> > having a suboptimal and/or confusing wording on the main webpage is
> > still better that having lots of broken hyperlinks there -- IMO much,
> > much better.
>
> I can't usefully review HTML within a diff, sorry.
>
In truth, my ping was only meant to other automake developers; sorry if
I sounded like I was demanding you to review the patch.
> If you attached the new HTML I could probably have a quick look
> in my browser.
>
But since you volunteer ;-) ... here it is.
Thanks,
Stefano
[automake.html (text/html, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-automake <at> gnu.org:
bug#10157; Package
automake.
(Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:13:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-automake <at> gnu.org:
bug#10157; Package
automake.
(Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:38:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #34 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Stefano Lattarini
<stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Adam.
>
> On Tuesday 06 December 2011, Adam Spiers wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Stefano Lattarini
>> > Ping? I will push this by tomorrow if there is no review by then, since
>> > having a suboptimal and/or confusing wording on the main webpage is
>> > still better that having lots of broken hyperlinks there -- IMO much,
>> > much better.
>>
>> I can't usefully review HTML within a diff, sorry.
>>
> In truth, my ping was only meant to other automake developers; sorry if
> I sounded like I was demanding you to review the patch.
Hehe, OK :)
>> If you attached the new HTML I could probably have a quick look
>> in my browser.
>>
> But since you volunteer ;-) ... here it is.
FWIW, looks good to me.
Information forwarded
to
bug-automake <at> gnu.org:
bug#10157; Package
automake.
(Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:38:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-automake <at> gnu.org:
bug#10157; Package
automake.
(Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:10:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #40 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Tuesday 06 December 2011, Adam Spiers wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> >> Adam Spiers wrote:
> >> If you attached the new HTML I could probably have a quick look
> >> in my browser.
> >>
> > But since you volunteer ;-) ... here it is.
>
> FWIW, looks good to me.
>
Pushed now, so closing this bug. And let's hope I haven't broken
anything ...
Regards,
Stefano
Reply sent
to
Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>:
You have taken responsibility.
(Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:10:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Notification sent
to
Adam Spiers <gnu <at> adamspiers.org>:
bug acknowledged by developer.
(Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:10:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-automake <at> gnu.org:
bug#10157; Package
automake.
(Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:16:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #48 received at 10157 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Wednesday 07 December 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 December 2011, Adam Spiers wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > >> Adam Spiers wrote:
> > >> If you attached the new HTML I could probably have a quick look
> > >> in my browser.
> > >>
> > > But since you volunteer ;-) ... here it is.
> >
> > FWIW, looks good to me.
> >
> Pushed now, so closing this bug. And let's hope I haven't broken
> anything ...
>
> Regards,
> Stefano
>
Sigh, there was still a broken link left! Fixed now.
Sorry for the noise,
Stefano
Information forwarded
to
bug-automake <at> gnu.org:
bug#10157; Package
automake.
(Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:17:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
(Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:24:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 13 years and 228 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.