[arch-dev-public] signoff sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686

[Travis Willard]

On Dec 12, 2007 8:55 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger at astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Eric Belanger wrote:
>
> > 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?
> >
> >
>
> Is there someone else thinking the same? We should get a resolution on the
> license field so we can fix it as needed and get the required signoff.

I was told ISC was a 'common' license like BSD, where you still needed
to install a license to /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname but it's in
enough use that we support it as a common one.

Was I misinformed?