It seems patch 2/2 of this set is rejected by the mailserver:

554 5.7.1 Rejected due to policy violation: Contains blacklisted URL.

For as far as I can see, the patch does not contain any URL's of any
sort.

How should I proceed from here? Is there an alternative way to submit
this patch-set? Or can it be checked what triggers this mailserver
error ?

Regards
Robin

Robin Roevens schreef op vr 25-06-2021 om 00:50 [+0200]:
> Hi
> 
> As discussed earlier, I hereby submit a patchset adding extra metadata 
> to all pak's.
> 
> First patch adds the new metadata fields "Summary" and "Services" to
> the 
> meta-file templates and introduces the new macro INSTALL_INITSCRIPTS 
> accepting a space seperated list of initscripts to install to avoid
> duplicating the list of service initscripts. (Once in the new SERVICES
> meta-data field and once by calling INSTALL_INITSCRIPT for each of 
> them).
> The original INSTALL_INITSCRIPT macro is kept (and called by the new
> macro) for corner cases where non-service initscripts need to be 
> installed and for use by non-pak lfs files as they currently don't have
> a SERVICES variable. 
> 
> The second patch adds the new metadata for all pak's in their
> respective
> lfs files. 
> As I went over all pak lfs files, I did not encounter any corner cases
> hence all calls to INSTALL_INITSCRIPT are replaced by calls to the new
> INSTALL_INITSCRIPTS passing the SERVICES variable as argument.
> The only special case maybe worth mentioning is Icinga, where a service
> initscript is installed by a make rule of the source. Hence no call to
> INSTALL_INITSCRIPT or INSTALL_INITSCRIPTS is required. But the service
> is included in the SERVICES variable to have it recorded in the meta-
> file.
> 
> This set does not yet contain changes in pakfire or services.cgi to
> actually do something with the new meta-data.
> Those changes will be posted shortly.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Robin
> 
> 


-- 
Dit bericht is gescanned op virussen en andere gevaarlijke
inhoud door MailScanner en lijkt schoon te zijn.