Обсуждение: Accessing yum-archive.postgresql.org
Hi all
<Error>
<Code>AccessDenied</Code>
...
</Error>
I recently had cause to look up a specific debuginfo package for an old release, but I found myself unable to construct a URL for yum-archive.postgresql.org that would permit directory listings. Is that intentional? All I get is an XML document like
<Error>
<Code>AccessDenied</Code>
...
</Error>
(I can't find the yum-archive documented anywhere either, but I've been known to be totally blind before...)
My understanding is that URLs should be of the form:
https://yum-archive.postgresql.org/9.6/redhat/rhel-$releasever-$basearch
--
but I can't get a listing from anything like
or
I'm assuming that all directory listing is disabled?
If so, is there anywhere I can get a possibly-compressed listing or manifest? It's not always practical to determine an exact package name...
Re: Craig Ringer 2019-12-12 <CAMsr+YEaoULxAYvJE8EfpEVga4F-nmrwm4cPPDM=QhdYRkjxBA@mail.gmail.com> > I'm assuming that all directory listing is disabled? That's because it's all S3 buckets. I need to invent a fix for that for the upcoming apt.pg.o archive as well... hopefully putting an index.html file in there works. Christoph
Hi, On Thu, 2019-12-12 at 10:09 +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Craig Ringer 2019-12-12 < > CAMsr+YEaoULxAYvJE8EfpEVga4F-nmrwm4cPPDM=QhdYRkjxBA@mail.gmail.com> > > I'm assuming that all directory listing is disabled? > > That's because it's all S3 buckets. Yeah :/ > I need to invent a fix for that for the upcoming apt.pg.o archive as > well... hopefully putting an index.html file in there works. Please let me know if that works for you Cheers, -- Devrim Gündüz Open Source Solution Architect, Red Hat Certified Engineer Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR
Вложения
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 03:39, Devrim Gündüz <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2019-12-12 at 10:09 +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Craig Ringer 2019-12-12 <
> CAMsr+YEaoULxAYvJE8EfpEVga4F-nmrwm4cPPDM=QhdYRkjxBA@mail.gmail.com>
> > I'm assuming that all directory listing is disabled?
>
> That's because it's all S3 buckets.
Yeah :/
That makes sense. S3 isn't exactly helpful about these things.
> I need to invent a fix for that for the upcoming apt.pg.o archive as
> well... hopefully putting an index.html file in there works.
Please let me know if that works for you
For interactive use, yes. But if the infrastructure has to generate files, then easy scriptability would be really good too. HTML isn't the greatest for that unless you mix in XML with a secondary namespace, and then you start upsettting browsers.
You also probably don't want to be re-writing one giant index.html or Packages.xz or similar manifest file each time the archive is updated.
So I think side-by-side HTML and some kind of json or similar would make sense, both generated and updated at the same time in the same job. There'd probably want to be a master listing entry point plus sub-listings, both for the HTML and script-friendly representations. I don't really have a strong opinion about the format of such listings so long as there's a browser-navigible HTML variant and something easily scripted. I'd lean toward json since it's so widespread and convenient, but pretty much anything right down to a tab separated flat file would do.
Re: Craig Ringer 2019-12-13 <CAMsr+YHcFcKUUupN1=MqeBO3JrKL8G3ioLvq751QTJ1bK4xsMA@mail.gmail.com>
> You also probably don't want to be re-writing one giant index.html or
> Packages.xz or similar manifest file each time the archive is updated.
The machine-readable format there is Packages.{gz,xz,whatever}, not
json or xml.
Christoph
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 16:55, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote:
Re: Craig Ringer 2019-12-13 <CAMsr+YHcFcKUUupN1=MqeBO3JrKL8G3ioLvq751QTJ1bK4xsMA@mail.gmail.com>
> You also probably don't want to be re-writing one giant index.html or
> Packages.xz or similar manifest file each time the archive is updated.
The machine-readable format there is Packages.{gz,xz,whatever}, not
json or xml.
For the apt/deb Debian/Ubuntu archive.
Not for the dnf/yum/rpm one. Right?
So long as it's there and discoverable that's fine though. Doesn't have to be the same as the yum/dnf/rpm one.