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

[Eric Bélanger]

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.