On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, repomaint@archlinux.org wrote:



Duplicate PKGBUILDs
---------------------
/community/devel/quilt/PKGBUILD vs. /extra/quilt/PKGBUILD


already fixed




Invalid Archs
---------------
libofa --> x64_86
zsnes --> ppc
minicom --> !x86_64


fixed.



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Eric Belanger
<belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, repomaint@archlinux.org wrote:
>
>>
>> Duplicate PKGBUILDs
>> ---------------------
>> /community/devel/quilt/PKGBUILD vs. /extra/quilt/PKGBUILD
>
> already fixed
>
>
>>
>> Invalid Archs
>> ---------------
>> libofa --> x64_86
>> zsnes --> ppc
>> minicom --> !x86_64
>
> fixed.

Sorry guys, we're going to get these two emails again today. I just
moved the cron jobs to run a few minutes after the ABS tree is
regenerated.

Do you guys think daily is too much for this? Should I have it run less often?

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:


On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Eric Belanger
<belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, repomaint@archlinux.org wrote:



Duplicate PKGBUILDs
---------------------
/community/devel/quilt/PKGBUILD vs. /extra/quilt/PKGBUILD


already fixed




Invalid Archs
---------------
libofa --> x64_86
zsnes --> ppc
minicom --> !x86_64


fixed.


Sorry guys, we're going to get these two emails again today. I just
moved the cron jobs to run a few minutes after the ABS tree is
regenerated.

Do you guys think daily is too much for this? Should I have it run less often?


weekly reports would be enough. It doesn't look like these things are
actively fixed. Most problems have been there since we started the
reports.


BTW, it might be useful to seperate the community packages from this
list and post them as a seperate report on the AUR ML. If that can be
done easily.


Also, both the sanity and the cleanup reports use the same subject. Maybe
they could use different subjects.


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Eric Belanger
<belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> weekly reports would be enough. It doesn't look like these things are
> actively fixed. Most problems have been there since we started the reports.

Ok, I will switch that at work tomorrow - I will have them generated on friday.

> BTW, it might be useful to seperate the community packages from this list
> and post them as a seperate report on the AUR ML. If that can be done
> easily.

I thought about that too. I think it should be easy enough.

> Also, both the sanity and the cleanup reports use the same subject. Maybe
> they could use different subjects.

Yup, changed that already