Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   ArchLinux Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/archlinux-development/)
-   -   signoff sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686 (http://www.linux-archive.org/archlinux-development/12616-signoff-sudo-1-6-9p9-i686.html)

"Dan McGee" 12-05-2007 02:17 AM

signoff sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686
 
On Dec 4, 2007 9:06 PM, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
> Please signoff on sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686.
> If someone would build/upload/signoff for x86_64, that would also be
> appreciated.

A normal sudo worked fine for me. Signing off, i686.

-Dan

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

Eric Belanger 12-05-2007 03:04 AM

signoff sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686
 
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Paul Mattal wrote:

> Please signoff on sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686.
> If someone would build/upload/signoff for x86_64, that would also be
> appreciated.
>
> - P
>
> _______________________________________________
> arch-dev-public mailing list
> arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
> http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public
>
>

I built the package for x86_64 and siging off.

However, I've fixed the license field:

-license=('custom' 'ISC')
+license=('custom:ISC')

It might be a good idea to rebuild the i686 package without bumping the
pkgver to fix the license and restart the signing for i686.

Eric

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


_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

Jason Chu 12-05-2007 04:57 AM

signoff sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686
 
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:04:52PM -0500, Eric Belanger wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Paul Mattal wrote:
>
> > Please signoff on sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686.
> > If someone would build/upload/signoff for x86_64, that would also be
> > appreciated.
> >
> > - P
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > arch-dev-public mailing list
> > arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
> > http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public
> >
> >
>
> I built the package for x86_64 and siging off.
>
> However, I've fixed the license field:
>
> -license=('custom' 'ISC')
> +license=('custom:ISC')
>
> It might be a good idea to rebuild the i686 package without bumping the
> pkgver to fix the license and restart the signing for i686.
>
> Eric

Hate to say it, but it's *not* a good idea it rebuild the i686 package
without bumping the pkgver. It's never a good idea to have two different
versions of a package out in the wild with the same pkgname-pkgver-pkgrel.

Jason
_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

"Roman Kyrylych" 12-05-2007 09:03 AM

signoff sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686
 
2007/12/5, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca>:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Paul Mattal wrote:
>
> > Please signoff on sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686.
> > If someone would build/upload/signoff for x86_64, that would also be
> > appreciated.
> >
> > - P
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > arch-dev-public mailing list
> > arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
> > http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public
> >
> >
>
> I built the package for x86_64 and siging off.
>
> However, I've fixed the license field:
>
> -license=('custom' 'ISC')
> +license=('custom:ISC')
>
> It might be a good idea to rebuild the i686 package without bumping the
> pkgver to fix the license and restart the signing for i686.
>

Please revert this change.
See http://cvs.archlinux.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/support/sudo/PKGBUILD.diff?r1=1.28&r2=1.29
I changed licenses to 'custom' 'ISC' because sudo actually uses 2
different licenses for different parts.
Actually, the patch was applied by Dan because I experienced some
issues with CVS access at that time.

--
Roman Kyrylych (*оман Кирилич)
_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

Pierre Schmitz 12-05-2007 09:18 AM

signoff sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686
 
Am Mittwoch, 5. Dezember 2007 11:03:27 schrieb Roman Kyrylych:
> Please revert this change.
> See
> http://cvs.archlinux.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/support/sudo/PKGBUILD.diff?r1=
>1.28&r2=1.29 I changed licenses to 'custom' 'ISC' because sudo actually uses
> 2
> different licenses for different parts.

Perhaps a short comment within the PKGBUILD might be usefull to explain such
things.

--
http://www.archlinux.de

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

Paul Mattal 12-05-2007 11:33 AM

signoff sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686
 
Jason Chu wrote:
>> It might be a good idea to rebuild the i686 package without bumping the
>> pkgver to fix the license and restart the signing for i686.
>>
>> Eric
>
> Hate to say it, but it's *not* a good idea it rebuild the i686 package
> without bumping the pkgver. It's never a good idea to have two different
> versions of a package out in the wild with the same pkgname-pkgver-pkgrel.

I agree with Jason. Even if there were a case for an exception, I'd
probably pass on it for the sudo package, because of its nature and size.

- P

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

Paul Mattal 12-05-2007 11:47 AM

signoff sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686
 
Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> Perhaps a short comment within the PKGBUILD might be usefull to explain such
> things.

I have reverted the changed, added such a comment, and moved the already
signed-off i686 package to core.

- P


_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

Eric Belanger 12-05-2007 06:41 PM

signoff sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686
 
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Paul Mattal wrote:

> Pierre Schmitz wrote:
>> Perhaps a short comment within the PKGBUILD might be usefull to explain such
>> things.
>
> I have reverted the changed, added such a comment, and moved the already
> signed-off i686 package to core.
>
> - P
>


For the license, it might have been better to simply use
license=('custom')
By having 'ISC' by itself, it implies that ISC is one of the common
licenses which it is not.

Also, in the future, can we keep the packages in testing until it get
signed off for both architectures? Apart from the fact that it will be
more foolproof as more people had looked at it, we should try to keep the
repo for the 2 architectures as in sync as possible. Otherwise, we might get
complaints and bug reports about why the x86_64 package is still in
testing. Also, it is simpler for us to keep track because it will be hard
to tell after some time why the x86_64 package is still in testing. Is it
because it's waiting to be signed off, because no-one noticed that it was
signed off shortly afterward or if it was just forgotten?

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


_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

Eric Belanger 12-13-2007 12:55 AM

signoff sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686
 
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Eric Belanger wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Paul Mattal wrote:
>
>> Pierre Schmitz wrote:
>>> Perhaps a short comment within the PKGBUILD might be usefull to explain such
>>> things.
>>
>> I have reverted the changed, added such a comment, and moved the already
>> signed-off i686 package to core.
>>
>> - P
>>
>
>
> For the license, it might have been better to simply use
> license=('custom')
> By having 'ISC' by itself, it implies that ISC is one of the common
> licenses which it is not.
>
> Also, in the future, can we keep the packages in testing until it get
> signed off for both architectures? Apart from the fact that it will be
> more foolproof as more people had looked at it, we should try to keep the
> repo for the 2 architectures as in sync as possible. Otherwise, we might get
> complaints and bug reports about why the x86_64 package is still in
> testing. Also, it is simpler for us to keep track because it will be hard
> to tell after some time why the x86_64 package is still in testing. Is it
> because it's waiting to be signed off, because no-one noticed that it was
> signed off shortly afterward or if it was just forgotten?
>
>

Is there someone else thinking the same? We should get a resolution on the
license field so we can fix it as needed and get the required signoff.

Eric

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


_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

"Travis Willard" 12-13-2007 01:19 AM

signoff sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686
 
On Dec 12, 2007 8:55 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Eric Belanger wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Paul Mattal wrote:
> >
> >> Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> >>> Perhaps a short comment within the PKGBUILD might be usefull to explain such
> >>> things.
> >>
> >> I have reverted the changed, added such a comment, and moved the already
> >> signed-off i686 package to core.
> >>
> >> - P
> >>
> >
> >
> > For the license, it might have been better to simply use
> > license=('custom')
> > By having 'ISC' by itself, it implies that ISC is one of the common
> > licenses which it is not.
> >
> > Also, in the future, can we keep the packages in testing until it get
> > signed off for both architectures? Apart from the fact that it will be
> > more foolproof as more people had looked at it, we should try to keep the
> > repo for the 2 architectures as in sync as possible. Otherwise, we might get
> > complaints and bug reports about why the x86_64 package is still in
> > testing. Also, it is simpler for us to keep track because it will be hard
> > to tell after some time why the x86_64 package is still in testing. Is it
> > because it's waiting to be signed off, because no-one noticed that it was
> > signed off shortly afterward or if it was just forgotten?
> >
> >
>
> Is there someone else thinking the same? We should get a resolution on the
> license field so we can fix it as needed and get the required signoff.

I was told ISC was a 'common' license like BSD, where you still needed
to install a license to /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname but it's in
enough use that we support it as a common one.

Was I misinformed?

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:49 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.