Yes, we want it clean. The iozone license appear to be a one off
license and should probably use "other", so it would be
LICENSE: GPLv2, other
The SOURCE_DOWNLOAD warning is because you don't have iozone3_321.tar in
your workspace. My guess is that you compressed the file using gzip or
bzip2. If you are changing the filename from the name used at download,
you need to change your METADATA to reflect that. Your METADATA should
have
SOURCE_DOWNLOAD:
ftp://tarballs.opensolaris.org/pub/iozone3_321.tar.gz (or whatever you used)
COMMENTS:
download=http://www.iozone.org/src/current/iozone3_321.tar
To answer the second question, tar should be a valid archive type, but
it appears that the unpack-archive script has a bug in it and wouldn't
unpack a .tar file right now. (.tar.* files, but no just .tar)
-Norm
Jim Walker wrote:
> Norm,
>
> Do we need to keep it clean (ie. no WARNINGS)
>
> Is tar a valid source archive type? ;)
>
> Cheers,
> Jim
>
> Ivan shi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I did a meta check in my package.
>>
>> $ make -f Makefile.sfw meta-check
>> METADATA: WARNING: unknown license type 'iozone copyright'
>> METADATA: WARNING: SOURCE_DOWNLOAD entry (iozone3_321.tar) doesn't
>> refer to a source archive
>>
>> I have the items in METADATA file:
>>
>> LICENSE: iozone copyright, GPLv2
>> SOURCE_DOWNLOAD: http://www.iozone.org/src/current/iozone3_321.tar
>>
>> 1)The pkg has an author's copyright, which doesn't match the list in
>> metainfo.pl.
>> 2)The tarball can be downloaded from that url.
>>
>> So do I need to care the two warnings?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ivan
