Re: UDD with new upstream version

On Friday, April 15, 2011 12:44:04 AM Micah Gersten wrote: > On 04/14/2011 02:00 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I decided to try UDD again for a new upstream version that was just > > released. > > > > I was following the documentation here: > > > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/

Re: UDD with new upstream version

On 04/14/2011 02:00 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I decided to try UDD again for a new upstream version that was just released. > > I was following the documentation here: > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/Documentation/NewUpstreamVersion > > I got to this step: > > bzr merge-upstre

Re: discussion of ubuntu-desktop packaging branches

On Apr 11, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Martin Pitt wrote: >We could do that. I actually usually do bzr bd -S first, and only >debcommit -r once that was successful, but I can just ignore the >warning :) I usually do things this way too. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-distrib

Re: discussion of ubuntu-desktop packaging branches

Hello, Robert Ancell [2011-04-11 12:45 +1000]: > I don't know exactly what I've broken, but I think it is when I do a > debcommit without the -r. I stuffed up the gvfs branch some time ago, > Seb/Martin fixed it up. Perhaps they can give more information. The thing we fixed up back then was usi

Re: discussion of ubuntu-desktop packaging branches

On 04/11/2011 11:43 AM, Martin Pool wrote: > Robert pointed out > , > about moving to 'normal mode' of bzr-builddeb, in which the entire > tree is versioned. > >> - It is possible to screw up the branches so that bzr merge-pac

Re: discussion of ubuntu-desktop packaging branches

Le lundi 11 avril 2011 à 12:45 +1000, Robert Ancell a écrit : > I don't know exactly what I've broken, but I think it is when I do a > debcommit without the -r. I stuffed up the gvfs branch some time > ago, Hi, The gvfs broken updated didn't have any source change in its commit it just seemed t

Re: UDD with new upstream version

On Apr 14, 2011, at 03:51 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >I'll do that. The wiki is semi-obsolete. As soon as the new Ubuntu packaging >guide gets a URL, I'll be removing the wiki pages and pointing to it (which >contains the latest content, and which I'll also update). Looks like Jelmer already did \

Re: UDD with new upstream version

On Apr 14, 2011, at 03:29 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> the bzr-builddeb in natty can use the watch file. If you have a watch >> file it will use the watch file to download the upstream release. >> >> The --version argument is also optional if you have a watch file; it >> will default to the late

Re: UDD with new upstream version

On Thursday, April 14, 2011 03:16:14 PM Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 15:00 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I decided to try UDD again for a new upstream version that was just > > released. > > > > I was following the documentation here: > > > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Distribu

Re: UDD with new upstream version

On Thursday, April 14, 2011 03:00:23 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > I decided to try UDD again for a new upstream version that was just > released. > > I was following the documentation here: > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/Documentation/NewUpstreamVer > sion > > I got to this st

Re: UDD with new upstream version

On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 15:00 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I decided to try UDD again for a new upstream version that was just released. > > I was following the documentation here: > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/Documentation/NewUpstreamVersion > > I got to this step: > > b

UDD with new upstream version

I decided to try UDD again for a new upstream version that was just released. I was following the documentation here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/Documentation/NewUpstreamVersion I got to this step: bzr merge-upstream --version 1.2 http://example.org/releases/foo-1.2.tar.gz