[arch-dev-public] [signoff] licenses 2.5

Allan McRae allan at archlinux.org
Mon Aug 3 20:18:53 EDT 2009


Eric Bélanger wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Dan McGee<dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Dan McGee<dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Allan McRae<allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Dan McGee wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre at archlinux.de>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Am Dienstag 02 Juni 2009 04:43:52 schrieb Dan McGee:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Fixes:
>>>>>>> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/14027
>>>>>>> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/14827
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also adds FDL 1.3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Dan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> This update has to be forced because dirs were replaced by links. Is
>>>>>> pacman-
>>>>>> git able to handle this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Ugh, really? I'm an idiot and never actually installed the package,
>>>>> and no, pacman-git doesn't handle it any better...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll rebuild with the links pointing the other way again, and then
>>>>> make a decision from there. This case doesn't seem hard but I believe
>>>>> it is one of our rather tricky "a lot of ways to do it wrong" ones.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Is this being rebuilt or are we going to -Sf this?
>>>>         
>>> I suck. If someone else wants to simply put the symlinks back the way
>>> they were in the previous package and rebuild, that should "fix" the
>>> issues. Looking at the diff should make it fairly obvious what to do,
>>> I just haven't had the time.
>>>       
>> So sorry for dragging this out so long. This looks like we are going
>> to have to do an -Sf operation, only because one of the licenses went
>> from not having versions to being versioned, which would require at
>> least one symlink/directory flipflop anyway.
>>
>> Does anyone have objections with posting a news item on this one
>> advertising the force, and calling it a day?
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>>     
>
> No objections as long as we get this thing done.
>   

Go for it.

Allan





More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list