Makes sense. In any case, the page I just staged actually works, so unless someone else has time to put into this, I think it's done for now.
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Andreas Veithen <andreas.veit...@gmail.com>wrote: > The fact that CXF uses closer.cgi is probably due to the fact that it > used Confluence and that the available options to build a download > page are more limited than in the case of a Maven site. > > Andreas > > On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 16:40, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Andreas, > > > > Well, I decided to follow the pattern at CXF instead, since Dan is > usually > > way ahead of me. That uses 'closer.cgi' instead of 'download.cgi'. The > > existing site was a broken attempt to use download.cgi. > > > > I just checked in a version that works, after editing to fix years of > sloppy > > pathname edits. I'm surprised anyone's ever successfully download the > > package :-) > > > > --benson > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Andreas Veithen > > <andreas.veit...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > >> Benson, > >> > >> Did you have a look at the following page? > >> > >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release-download-pages.html > >> > >> I always thought that the download.cgi based mechanism is the > >> preferred way to build download pages. > >> > >> Andreas > >> > >> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 15:48, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > I see what I have to do to fix this once and for all. > >> > > >> > > >
