[Top][All Lists]

[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.




non interactive:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]