On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick) > >> > >> <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> > patrick 14/12/31 05:21:11 > >> > > >> > Removed: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild > >> > > >> > metadata.xml > >> > > >> > Log: > >> > QA: Remove package with invalid copyright > >> > >> you do not go reverting code without actually talking to people. if > >> you feel like a revert is necessary, then file a bug. putting a "QA" > >> tag at the start of the commit message doesn't give you a pass. > > > > Normally I'd side with you on this...but I'm fairly sure repoman doesn't > > let you commit packages to the tree missing these headers. This leads me > > to believe you didn't use repoman, or ignored it? > > feel free to grab the code i originally committed and run `repoman > full` yourself. no fatal errors. in fact you can see the generated > tags in my commit message.
Well, AutoRepoman triggered on it. Testing for fun on a random ebuild: RepoMan scours the neighborhood... ebuild.badheader 1 dev-db/hyperdex/hyperdex-1.6.0-r1.ebuild: Invalid Gentoo Copyright on line: 1 Which again leads me to the question: Why are these checks not properly fatal? (And I really do not like having to repeat myself ...) > > even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is > complete bs. anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in > Gentoo is completely unenforceable. we have no CLA. this was > patrick/QA wasting people's time to check a meaningless box. > -mike As others have pointed out, policy is policy. Don't shoot the massager. Since I can't just fix the copyright (that would be more wrong) I opted for the easy way out - remove offending bits. Have fun, Patrick
