[arch-dev-public] Fixing licenses / sources
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com wrote:
Please check /var/log/sourceballs/ to see if some of your packages are there. These failures cause a slow down of the script. The script now runs in 30 min compared to the few hours it took when I first started the tests. Please post here if you can fix your packages sometime this week. If not, post anyway. This way we'll know what packages are taken care off.
BTW, fssos-nsvs will need to be rebuild to fix the license among other things. But it doesn't build anymore (latest version is from 2005). I have an updated PKGBUILD if you want to give it a shot. And I'm upgrading openal so leave that to me.
If you are interested (and have time) in helping out for steps 2 & 3 that I mentionned earlier in this thread, post here. This way we'll know who will work on this and we'll be able to organize ourselves. You can count me in although an upcoming faad2 rebuild (and perhaps an ffmpeg/x264 update/rebuild) will probably take most of my time this week.
Eric
A week has passed and still no volunteers? Anyway, I've kept myself busy lately by updating out-of-date orphaned packages, fixing their licenses and other stuff as needed. I 've also started fixing the packages in /var/log/sourceballs/.
Changing the subject and ML to make this more visible
Please take a look at the packages that fail in /var/log/sourceballs If any of your packages are there, please fix them so that "makepkg --allsource" works.
Additionally, please check ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/sources/failed.txt ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/sources/errors.txt [1] for additional failures
1: This output sucks. I've committed a fix for it, but it's not released
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.
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.
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. ===
2009/2/28 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
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.
I'm pretty rusty so can we make this into a proper check list with pointers to wiki etc so I/others don't miss stuff? It _is_ too good an opportunity not do to a absolutely through job, so best to make sure everyone involved is checking/updating the same things and doing so correctly.
- 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 Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/28 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
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.
I'm pretty rusty so can we make this into a proper check list with pointers to wiki etc so I/others don't miss stuff? It _is_ too good an opportunity not do to a absolutely through job, so best to make sure everyone involved is checking/updating the same things and doing so correctly.
checklist : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_Checklist
I believe I haven't forgotten anything. Some of these are trivial, some might need more detailed explanation...
2009/3/6 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
checklist : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_Checklist
I believe I haven't forgotten anything. Some of these are trivial, some might need more detailed explanation...
Sorry, I have only just seen this. Are we still doing it in a co-ordinated fashion or has everyone just got in with it and I have missed the boat?
2009/3/12 Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com:
2009/3/6 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
checklist : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_Checklist
I believe I haven't forgotten anything. Some of these are trivial, some might need more detailed explanation...
Sorry, I have only just seen this. Are we still doing it in a co-ordinated fashion or has everyone just got in with it and I have missed the boat?
If this hasn't been started already then let's just go for it. I'm desperate to get into something!
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/12 Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com:
2009/3/6 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
checklist : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_Checklist
I believe I haven't forgotten anything. Some of these are trivial, some might need more detailed explanation...
Sorry, I have only just seen this. Are we still doing it in a co-ordinated fashion or has everyone just got in with it and I have missed the boat?
If this hasn't been started already then let's just go for it. I'm desperate to get into something!
It hasn't been started yet. I am waiting for Aaron to push live the latest git changes. They'll fix the sourceball.{skip, force} grepping. They'll also make the failed.txt and errors.txt useful for creating a list of packages to fix. I'll use another way to make a list.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/12 Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com:
2009/3/6 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
checklist : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_Checklist
I believe I haven't forgotten anything. Some of these are trivial, some might need more detailed explanation...
Sorry, I have only just seen this. Are we still doing it in a co-ordinated fashion or has everyone just got in with it and I have missed the boat?
If this hasn't been started already then let's just go for it. I'm desperate to get into something!
It hasn't been started yet. I am waiting for Aaron to push live the latest git changes. They'll fix the sourceball.{skip, force} grepping. They'll also make the failed.txt and errors.txt useful for creating a list of packages to fix. I'll use another way to make a list.
Pushed live and tagged!
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/12 Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com:
2009/3/6 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
checklist : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_Checklist
I believe I haven't forgotten anything. Some of these are trivial, some might need more detailed explanation...
Sorry, I have only just seen this. Are we still doing it in a co-ordinated fashion or has everyone just got in with it and I have missed the boat?
If this hasn't been started already then let's just go for it. I'm desperate to get into something!
It hasn't been started yet. I am waiting for Aaron to push live the latest git changes. They'll fix the sourceball.{skip, force} grepping. They'll also make the failed.txt and errors.txt useful for creating a list of packages to fix. I'll use another way to make a list.
Pushed live and tagged!
Thanks.
I've made a list of packages with missing licenses. I still found the errors.txt too cluttered (list packages with non-(L)GPL license and for both arches) so I just used the abs tree on x86_64. Some i686-only packages might be missing but I'll add them later as there's plenty to do for now. The list : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_TODO
Just add your name beside the packages you plan to do. Better take a dozen or so at a time. Once they're done, remove them from the list. If they cause problems (soname bump, doesn't build/work, etc), skip them and replace your name with a note explaning the problem. You can try to find a patch or a fix but don't spend too much time on that. Better focus on the easy ones for now. We'll deal with the problematic ones later.
Eric
Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/12 Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com:
2009/3/6 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
checklist : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_Checklist
I believe I haven't forgotten anything. Some of these are trivial, some might need more detailed explanation...
Sorry, I have only just seen this. Are we still doing it in a co-ordinated fashion or has everyone just got in with it and I have missed the boat?
If this hasn't been started already then let's just go for it. I'm desperate to get into something!
It hasn't been started yet. I am waiting for Aaron to push live the latest git changes. They'll fix the sourceball.{skip, force} grepping. They'll also make the failed.txt and errors.txt useful for creating a list of packages to fix. I'll use another way to make a list.
Pushed live and tagged!
Thanks.
I've made a list of packages with missing licenses. I still found the errors.txt too cluttered (list packages with non-(L)GPL license and for both arches) so I just used the abs tree on x86_64. Some i686-only packages might be missing but I'll add them later as there's plenty to do for now. The list : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_TODO
Just add your name beside the packages you plan to do. Better take a dozen or so at a time. Once they're done, remove them from the list. If they cause problems (soname bump, doesn't build/work, etc), skip them and replace your name with a note explaning the problem. You can try to find a patch or a fix but don't spend too much time on that. Better focus on the easy ones for now. We'll deal with the problematic ones later.
How about we just remove all the fortune-mod-<foo> packages instead of rebuilding them... They are all orphans and with low (>5%) usage.
Allan
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/12 Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com:
2009/3/6 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
> > checklist : > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_Checklist > > I believe I haven't forgotten anything. Some of these are trivial, > some might need more detailed explanation... > >
Sorry, I have only just seen this. Are we still doing it in a co-ordinated fashion or has everyone just got in with it and I have missed the boat?
If this hasn't been started already then let's just go for it. I'm desperate to get into something!
It hasn't been started yet. I am waiting for Aaron to push live the latest git changes. They'll fix the sourceball.{skip, force} grepping. They'll also make the failed.txt and errors.txt useful for creating a list of packages to fix. I'll use another way to make a list.
Pushed live and tagged!
Thanks.
I've made a list of packages with missing licenses. I still found the errors.txt too cluttered (list packages with non-(L)GPL license and for both arches) so I just used the abs tree on x86_64. Some i686-only packages might be missing but I'll add them later as there's plenty to do for now. The list : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_TODO
Just add your name beside the packages you plan to do. Better take a dozen or so at a time. Once they're done, remove them from the list. If they cause problems (soname bump, doesn't build/work, etc), skip them and replace your name with a note explaning the problem. You can try to find a patch or a fix but don't spend too much time on that. Better focus on the easy ones for now. We'll deal with the problematic ones later.
How about we just remove all the fortune-mod-<foo> packages instead of rebuilding them... They are all orphans and with low (>5%) usage.
Allan
We could do that. Any objections?
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/12 Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com:
> > 2009/3/6 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com: > >> >> checklist : >> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_Checklist >> >> I believe I haven't forgotten anything. Some of these are trivial, >> some might need more detailed explanation... >> >> > > Sorry, I have only just seen this. Are we still doing it in a > co-ordinated fashion or has everyone just got in with it and I have > missed the boat? > >
If this hasn't been started already then let's just go for it. I'm desperate to get into something!
It hasn't been started yet. I am waiting for Aaron to push live the latest git changes. They'll fix the sourceball.{skip, force} grepping. They'll also make the failed.txt and errors.txt useful for creating a list of packages to fix. I'll use another way to make a list.
Pushed live and tagged!
Thanks.
I've made a list of packages with missing licenses. I still found the errors.txt too cluttered (list packages with non-(L)GPL license and for both arches) so I just used the abs tree on x86_64. Some i686-only packages might be missing but I'll add them later as there's plenty to do for now. The list : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_TODO
Just add your name beside the packages you plan to do. Better take a dozen or so at a time. Once they're done, remove them from the list. If they cause problems (soname bump, doesn't build/work, etc), skip them and replace your name with a note explaning the problem. You can try to find a patch or a fix but don't spend too much time on that. Better focus on the easy ones for now. We'll deal with the problematic ones later.
How about we just remove all the fortune-mod-<foo> packages instead of rebuilding them... They are all orphans and with low (>5%) usage.
Allan
We could do that. Any objections?
Maybe, before starting the rebuilds, we should first go through the list and see if there are not other orphaned packages that could be moved to unsupported. I'll see if I can quickly seperate the orphans from this list.
2009/3/13 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
Thanks.
I've made a list of packages with missing licenses. I still found the errors.txt too cluttered (list packages with non-(L)GPL license and for both arches) so I just used the abs tree on x86_64. Some i686-only packages might be missing but I'll add them later as there's plenty to do for now. The list : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_TODO
Just add your name beside the packages you plan to do. Better take a dozen or so at a time. Once they're done, remove them from the list. If they cause problems (soname bump, doesn't build/work, etc), skip them and replace your name with a note explaning the problem. You can try to find a patch or a fix but don't spend too much time on that. Better focus on the easy ones for now. We'll deal with the problematic ones later.
Eric
Can I just take t* for starters, please? That's about 13 pkgs and seems as a good a set as any.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/13 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
Thanks.
I've made a list of packages with missing licenses. I still found the errors.txt too cluttered (list packages with non-(L)GPL license and for both arches) so I just used the abs tree on x86_64. Some i686-only packages might be missing but I'll add them later as there's plenty to do for now. The list : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_TODO
Just add your name beside the packages you plan to do. Better take a dozen or so at a time. Once they're done, remove them from the list. If they cause problems (soname bump, doesn't build/work, etc), skip them and replace your name with a note explaning the problem. You can try to find a patch or a fix but don't spend too much time on that. Better focus on the easy ones for now. We'll deal with the problematic ones later.
Eric
Can I just take t* for starters, please? That's about 13 pkgs and seems as a good a set as any.
Sure go ahead. I created for each of us a TODO list. Either cut n' paste the packages you want to do or write what letter you are doing. I was thinking going with letters too. This will be more convenient for us.
If other devs want to help out, they can always add a TODO list for themselves.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/13 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
Thanks.
I've made a list of packages with missing licenses. I still found the errors.txt too cluttered (list packages with non-(L)GPL license and for both arches) so I just used the abs tree on x86_64. Some i686-only packages might be missing but I'll add them later as there's plenty to do for now. The list : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_TODO
Just add your name beside the packages you plan to do. Better take a dozen or so at a time. Once they're done, remove them from the list. If they cause problems (soname bump, doesn't build/work, etc), skip them and replace your name with a note explaning the problem. You can try to find a patch or a fix but don't spend too much time on that. Better focus on the easy ones for now. We'll deal with the problematic ones later.
Eric
Can I just take t* for starters, please? That's about 13 pkgs and seems as a good a set as any.
Did you had time to fix these? Apart for some exceptions, only the t's and the v-z's are remaining.
2009/4/19 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/13 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
Thanks.
I've made a list of packages with missing licenses. I still found the errors.txt too cluttered (list packages with non-(L)GPL license and for both arches) so I just used the abs tree on x86_64. Some i686-only packages might be missing but I'll add them later as there's plenty to do for now. The list : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_TODO
Just add your name beside the packages you plan to do. Better take a dozen or so at a time. Once they're done, remove them from the list. If they cause problems (soname bump, doesn't build/work, etc), skip them and replace your name with a note explaning the problem. You can try to find a patch or a fix but don't spend too much time on that. Better focus on the easy ones for now. We'll deal with the problematic ones later.
Eric
Can I just take t* for starters, please? That's about 13 pkgs and seems as a good a set as any.
Did you had time to fix these? Apart for some exceptions, only the t's and the v-z's are remaining.
Hello!
Sorry, I have been completely unavailable due to an unplanned and sudden loss of job situation! Obviously this couldn't have come at a worse time as I was just settling back in!
Are all the t's still need to be done?
Epic fail on my part I know but I did manage to keep my job. So, not all bad!
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/19 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/13 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
Thanks.
I've made a list of packages with missing licenses. I still found the errors.txt too cluttered (list packages with non-(L)GPL license and for both arches) so I just used the abs tree on x86_64. Some i686-only packages might be missing but I'll add them later as there's plenty to do for now. The list : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_TODO
Just add your name beside the packages you plan to do. Better take a dozen or so at a time. Once they're done, remove them from the list. If they cause problems (soname bump, doesn't build/work, etc), skip them and replace your name with a note explaning the problem. You can try to find a patch or a fix but don't spend too much time on that. Better focus on the easy ones for now. We'll deal with the problematic ones later.
Eric
Can I just take t* for starters, please? That's about 13 pkgs and seems as a good a set as any.
Did you had time to fix these? Apart for some exceptions, only the t's and the v-z's are remaining.
Hello!
Sorry, I have been completely unavailable due to an unplanned and sudden loss of job situation! Obviously this couldn't have come at a worse time as I was just settling back in!
Are all the t's still need to be done?
Epic fail on my part I know but I did manage to keep my job. So, not all bad!
I'm glad that you kept your job. :)
As for the t's they are all yours. I've been busy doing the other letters. However, you might want to check if someone else has rebuild the packages (because of an update, bug fix) since I created the list.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/19 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/13 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
Thanks.
I've made a list of packages with missing licenses. I still found the errors.txt too cluttered (list packages with non-(L)GPL license and for both arches) so I just used the abs tree on x86_64. Some i686-only packages might be missing but I'll add them later as there's plenty to do for now. The list : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_TODO
Just add your name beside the packages you plan to do. Better take a dozen or so at a time. Once they're done, remove them from the list. If they cause problems (soname bump, doesn't build/work, etc), skip them and replace your name with a note explaning the problem. You can try to find a patch or a fix but don't spend too much time on that. Better focus on the easy ones for now. We'll deal with the problematic ones later.
Eric
Can I just take t* for starters, please? That's about 13 pkgs and seems as a good a set as any.
Did you had time to fix these? Apart for some exceptions, only the t's and the v-z's are remaining.
Hello!
Sorry, I have been completely unavailable due to an unplanned and sudden loss of job situation! Obviously this couldn't have come at a worse time as I was just settling back in!
Are all the t's still need to be done?
Epic fail on my part I know but I did manage to keep my job. So, not all bad!
I'm glad that you kept your job. :)
As for the t's they are all yours. I've been busy doing the other letters. However, you might want to check if someone else has rebuild the packages (because of an update, bug fix) since I created the list.
If you have local packages/changes, could you push them to the repo/svn? I'll be done with the rest by the end of the week. If you don't have time to do the t's, I could do them just to get this license rebuild over with.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/19 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/13 Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool@gmail.com:
Thanks.
I've made a list of packages with missing licenses. I still found the errors.txt too cluttered (list packages with non-(L)GPL license and for both arches) so I just used the abs tree on x86_64. Some i686-only packages might be missing but I'll add them later as there's plenty to do for now. The list : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_TODO
Just add your name beside the packages you plan to do. Better take a dozen or so at a time. Once they're done, remove them from the list. If they cause problems (soname bump, doesn't build/work, etc), skip them and replace your name with a note explaning the problem. You can try to find a patch or a fix but don't spend too much time on that. Better focus on the easy ones for now. We'll deal with the problematic ones later.
Eric
Can I just take t* for starters, please? That's about 13 pkgs and seems as a good a set as any.
Did you had time to fix these? Apart for some exceptions, only the t's and the v-z's are remaining.
Hello!
Sorry, I have been completely unavailable due to an unplanned and sudden loss of job situation! Obviously this couldn't have come at a worse time as I was just settling back in!
Are all the t's still need to be done?
Epic fail on my part I know but I did manage to keep my job. So, not all bad!
I'm glad that you kept your job. :)
As for the t's they are all yours. I've been busy doing the other letters. However, you might want to check if someone else has rebuild the packages (because of an update, bug fix) since I created the list.
If you have local packages/changes, could you push them to the repo/svn? I'll be done with the rest by the end of the week. If you don't have time to do the t's, I could do them just to get this license rebuild over with.
FYI, I've started doing the t's.
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.
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.
participants (5)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Allan McRae
-
Eric Bélanger
-
Phil Dillon-Thiselton
-
Pierre Schmitz