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.

--

Pierre Schmitz


Clemens-August-Straße 76
53115 Bonn

Telefon 0228 9716608
Mobil 0160 95269831
Jabber pierre@jabber.archlinux.de
WWW http://www.archlinux.de

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> 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.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> 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fixed (in some cases they're just out-of-date).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.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> 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.

Yeah it's fixed n git already

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> 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.

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 <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de>
>>> 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

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton
<dibblethewrecker@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can help fix em if i am not treading on toes? Just a case of
> updating the pkgbuild or re-build too?

Basically, yes. I'll repost below the details I posted previously on
the private ML. Right now, I'm waiting for the errors.txt to be fixed
and to give time for more volunteers to show up hopefully. Then, I'm
thinking about creating a list of packages to go through, splitting it
in pieces and assigning the pieces.

===
2. Rebuild the packages with missing license. Some of them have
already the licence in trunk but they need to be rebuild. We should
definitely use this opportunity to do a good maintenance job on them ,
i.e., check for FHS man pages, add the info pages (don't forget the
.install file) and docs in correct location, check for upstream
updates and for bug report in flyspray, etc. We could all do these
long-standing minor fixes at the same time.

3. Check the custom-licensed packages to see if they need to be added
in the whitelist. We could also check if reditribution of the binary
is allowed just in case. If you rebuild a custom-licensed package,
please note down the package name and whether or not we need to supply
the source. Here, it's important to keep track of which packages have
been checked.
===

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> 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.
>

Seems like there is a problems with the new KDE packages. See
/var/log/sourceballs/. Could you fix it?
Thanks.

Am Montag, 2. März 2009 03:18:03 schrieb Eric Bélanger:
> Seems like there is a problems with the new KDE packages. See
> /var/log/sourceballs/. Could you fix it?

I fear not. They are not on the mirrors yet. Just wait a few days.

--

Pierre Schmitz


Clemens-August-Straße 76
53115 Bonn

Telefon 0228 9716608
Mobil 0160 95269831
Jabber pierre@jabber.archlinux.de
WWW http://www.archlinux.de

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
> Am Montag, 2. März 2009 03:18:03 schrieb Eric Bélanger:
>> Seems like there is a problems with the new KDE packages. See
>> /var/log/sourceballs/. Could you fix it?
>
> I fear not. They are not on the mirrors yet. Just wait a few days.
>

In that case, nevermind them. I had forgotten that you had access to
the source before the actual official release. The script will grab
them whenever they'll be on the mirrors.