On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Roman Kyrylych >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 2008/5/22 Thayer Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> On 5/21/08, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> However, now that you mentioned swt, it brings up a good point. We >>>>> can't do this for things like flashplugin just yet. So, should I >>>>> create some sort of list of packages to NEVER generate sources for? >>>> >>>> I think it would be a good idea to implement a blacklist. A lot of >>>> factors may warrant its use (size, license, version, etc.) >>> >>> Hmm, I can only think about packages that we have >>> a special permission to redistribute for: >>> virtualbox-additions in Community and (I may be totally wrong here) >>> flashplayer in Extra), don't know about others. >>> (BTW both packages' "source" and binary are almost the same) >>> What I don't know if redistribution from out site covers our mirrors too. >> >> Ok, so this ran for all repos. I blacklisted a few known bad ones >> (bash and readline, the mirror used for the source is borked), and the >> following huge list of packages failed: >> http://dev.archlinux.org/~aaron/sources/failed.pkgs >> >> Take a second and scan these please - if you can, please correct the source. >> As Eric pointed out elsewhere, we can merge source change from trunk >> with archrelease, without the need to re-release the package (this >> will fix abs too) >> > > Keep in mind there's probably dupes, as it runs for both x86_64 and > i686 (and checks for an existing source for the correct version). Let > me try to clean those up real quick >
Sorted. 431 packages: http://dev.archlinux.org/~aaron/sources/failed.pkgs
