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.