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

[Dan McGee]

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Allan McRae<allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
> 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.

I'd like to wait until 3.3.0 hits [core] then there will be no issues
at all with this package. Hint hint, please signoff on pacman. :)

-Dan