[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
contradicting statements about version download?
From: |
a^gyaanapan |
Subject: |
contradicting statements about version download? |
Date: |
Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:34:24 +0000 |
On edit form - general info:
Ver. download *
Direct download URL of this specific version of the free software package or
alternatively an URL which immediately leads to the listing of different
formats of the package (with or without visible checksums). The destination
must not show deceptive ads and the software download must be its main content.
On [[Free Software Directory:Workflow/Entry]] (1)
Version download *
This is the download link to the source code archive for the project. The
version number that you choose above must be the same as the version of the
download that you point to here. Link to the tarball/zip file, not the
signature or hash of the file. (So choose *.tgz, *.tar.gz, *.tar.bz2, or *.zip,
etc, but not *.md5, *.md5sum, *.sha1sum, *sha256sum, *.gpg, *.gpgsig, etc.)
Generally, the hash files and signatures are very tiny compared the the source
archive itself, so that is another way to tell. If you want to test to see if
you've picked the right one, download it and try to extract it.
should we specify directory or provide download link?
generally i am against specifying direct download link of file.
i request members to kindly comment.
regards,
a^gyaanapan
(1) https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Software_Directory:Workflow/Entry
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
non interactive: agyaanapan.neocities.org
interactive: @agyaanapan@social.linux.pizza
- contradicting statements about version download?,
a^gyaanapan <=