[arch-dev-public] Fixing licenses / sources

Phil Dillon-Thiselton dibblethewrecker at gmail.com
Mon Mar 2 06:51:14 EST 2009

2009/2/28 Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton
> <dibblethewrecker at 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.

> 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.
> ===

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list