I can help fix em if i am not treading on toes? Just a case of updating the pkgbuild or re-build too?
On 26/02/2009, Eric Bélanger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Eric Bélanger <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Aaron Griffin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Pierre Schmitz <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Am Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2009 20:20:01 schrieb Aaron Griffin: >>>>> Additionally, please check >>>>> ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/sources/failed.txt >>>> >>>> Are you sure about this list? I have checked some of my packages listed >>>> there >>>> and except of openssl all work. >>> >>> Well, the error output is a LITTLE bit goofy - it includes failures >>> for licenses, I think. >>> >>> Right now, we only maintain sources for packages with licenses in >>> LGPL, LGPL2, GPL, GPL2. If the package doesn't have one of those, it's >>> reported as a failure. I've pushed a fix for this so that license >>> errors are still output, but the run is counted as success. >>> >> >> Well, for now, at least the packages in /var/log/sourceballs should be >> fixed (in some cases they're just out-of-date). These are the real >> failiures. The rest is missing/invalid license and licenses for which >> we don't create sourceballs. And I would like to know who's willing >> to help out fixing packages with missing licenses to make sure there's >> no duplication of work. That's the 2 important things to do at >> present. >> >> BTW, I noticed that errors.txt doesn't print the name of the package >> which generated the error. So it's practically useless for now. Once >> that'll be fixed, we'll know which packages have a missing/invalid >> license. >> > > Also, failed.txt should only list the packages that have a > corresponding failed log in /var/log/sourceballs. Packages with a > non-GPL license shouldn't appear in it; these should appear in > errors.txt only. > -- Sent from my mobile device
