FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-05-2007, 02:17 AM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default 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
 
Old 12-05-2007, 03:04 AM
Eric Belanger
 
Default 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
 
Old 12-05-2007, 04:57 AM
Jason Chu
 
Default 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
 
Old 12-05-2007, 09:03 AM
"Roman Kyrylych"
 
Default 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
 
Old 12-05-2007, 09:18 AM
Pierre Schmitz
 
Default 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
 
Old 12-05-2007, 11:33 AM
Paul Mattal
 
Default 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
 
Old 12-05-2007, 11:47 AM
Paul Mattal
 
Default 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
 
Old 12-05-2007, 06:41 PM
Eric Belanger
 
Default 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
 
Old 12-13-2007, 12:55 AM
Eric Belanger
 
Default 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
 
Old 12-13-2007, 01:19 AM
"Travis Willard"
 
Default 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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:22 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org