On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Roman Kyrylych > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/5/22 Thayer Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> On 5/21/08, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> However, now that you mentioned swt, it brings up a good point. We >>>> can't do this for things like flashplugin just yet. So, should I >>>> create some sort of list of packages to NEVER generate sources for? >>> >>> I think it would be a good idea to implement a blacklist. A lot of >>> factors may warrant its use (size, license, version, etc.) >> >> Hmm, I can only think about packages that we have >> a special permission to redistribute for: >> virtualbox-additions in Community and (I may be totally wrong here) >> flashplayer in Extra), don't know about others. >> (BTW both packages' "source" and binary are almost the same) >> What I don't know if redistribution from out site covers our mirrors too. > > Ok, so this ran for all repos. I blacklisted a few known bad ones > (bash and readline, the mirror used for the source is borked), and the > following huge list of packages failed: > http://dev.archlinux.org/~aaron/sources/failed.pkgs > > Take a second and scan these please - if you can, please correct the source. > As Eric pointed out elsewhere, we can merge source change from trunk > with archrelease, without the need to re-release the package (this > will fix abs too) >
Keep in mind there's probably dupes, as it runs for both x86_64 and i686 (and checks for an existing source for the correct version). Let me try to clean those up real quick
