Thanks for your clarification. No warning for now after I made changes.
Thanks, Ivan Norm Jacobs wrote: > > 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 >
