Re: packaging question regarding the watch file

[Herminio Hernandez Jr.]

Like I said I am probably over thinking.  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 11, 2016, at 4:00 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 01:24:26AM -0700, Herminio Hernandez Jr wrote:
 Let me try to clarify. Did my package use the code from upstream or the
 code from the watch file to build.
>>> 
>>> Please read how gbp works.
>>> gbp uses the version from d/changelog to find the upstream tag which it
>>> then uses to recreate the orig tarball.
>> 
>> 
>> I have been reading the documentation 
>> here:http://honk.sigxcpu.org/projects/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.import.html#GBP.IMPORT.UPSTREAM.GIT.NOTARBALL[1]
>>  
> That says the same thing as I did: "version will be replaced with the
> upstream version number as determined from debian/changelog".
> 
> 
> -- 
> WBR, wRAR

Re: packaging question regarding the watch file

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 01:24:26AM -0700, Herminio Hernandez Jr wrote:
> > > Let me try to clarify. Did my package use the code from upstream or the
> > > code from the watch file to build.
> > 
> > Please read how gbp works.
> > gbp uses the version from d/changelog to find the upstream tag which it
> > then uses to recreate the orig tarball.
> 
> 
> I have been reading the documentation 
> here:http://honk.sigxcpu.org/projects/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.import.html#GBP.IMPORT.UPSTREAM.GIT.NOTARBALL[1]
>  
That says the same thing as I did: "version will be replaced with the
upstream version number as determined from debian/changelog".


-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: packaging question regarding the watch file

[Herminio Hernandez Jr]

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 1:20:05 PM MST Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 01:16:21AM -0700, Herminio Hernandez Jr wrote:
> > Let me try to clarify. Did my package use the code from upstream or the
> > code from the watch file to build.
> 
> Please read how gbp works.
> gbp uses the version from d/changelog to find the upstream tag which it
> then uses to recreate the orig tarball.


I have been reading the documentation 
here:http://honk.sigxcpu.org/projects/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.import.html#GBP.IMPORT.UPSTREAM.GIT.NOTARBALL[1]
 

Just what I saw threw me off I am probably reading too much into it.



[1] http://honk.sigxcpu.org/projects/git-buildpackage/manual-html/
gbp.import.html#GBP.IMPORT.UPSTREAM.GIT.NOTARBALL


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: packaging question regarding the watch file

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 01:16:21AM -0700, Herminio Hernandez Jr wrote:
> Let me try to clarify. Did my package use the code from upstream or the code 
> from the watch file to build.
Please read how gbp works.
gbp uses the version from d/changelog to find the upstream tag which it
then uses to recreate the orig tarball.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: packaging question regarding the watch file

[Herminio Hernandez Jr]

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 12:57:40 PM MST Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 11:04:30PM -0700, Herminio Hernandez Jr wrote:
> > I have a question regarding packaging using git and the watch file in the
> > Debian directory. There is an open bug 794438 for the KDE Partition
> > Manager. The current package is broken in Sid. In the thread it was
> > mentioned that the KDE Neon has a working package. When I pulled the git
> > repo it was only the Debian directory. So what I was following [1]the
> > git-buildpackage manual  I cloned the partition manager git repo added
> > the debian directory and was able to build a working package. However
> > after looking closely I begun to wonder if I understood what I was doing.
> > So the upstream repro appears to be on version 2.9.90 and preparing to go
> > to version 3.0. However the version that I built was 1.0.3. I did not
> > understand how this could have happened. Then looking in the Debian
> > directory I saw that the watch file is referencing a Source Forge repo
> > with the v1.0.3 tar ball. So my question is when I built the package did
> > I need to pull code from the upstream repo? Did the build tools just pull
> > the tar file down from sf and used it instead? Any help understanding
> > will be appreciated[2]
> I didn't fully understand what are you asking but if you are asking why
> did your package use the 1.0.3 version it's because the package version in
> debian/changelog is 1.0.3.

Let me try to clarify. Did my package use the code from upstream or the code 
from the watch file to build.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: packaging question regarding the watch file

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 11:04:30PM -0700, Herminio Hernandez Jr wrote:
> I have a question regarding packaging using git and the watch file in the 
> Debian directory. There is an open bug 794438 for the KDE Partition Manager. 
> The current package is broken in Sid. In the thread it was mentioned that the 
> KDE Neon has a working package. When I pulled the git repo it was only the 
> Debian directory. So what I was following [1]the git-buildpackage manual  I 
> cloned the partition manager git repo added the debian directory and was able 
> to build a working package. However after looking closely I begun to wonder 
> if I understood what I was doing. So the upstream repro appears to be on 
> version 2.9.90 and preparing to go to version 3.0. However the version that I 
> built was 1.0.3. I did not understand how this could have happened. Then 
> looking in the Debian directory I saw that the watch file is referencing a 
> Source Forge repo with the v1.0.3 tar ball. So my question is when I built 
> the package did I need to pull code from the upstream repo? Did the build 
> tools just pull the tar file down from sf and used it instead? Any help 
> understanding will be appreciated[2]
I didn't fully understand what are you asking but if you are asking why
did your package use the 1.0.3 version it's because the package version in
debian/changelog is 1.0.3.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

packaging question regarding the watch file

[Herminio Hernandez Jr]

Dear Mentors,

I have a question regarding packaging using git and the watch file in the 
Debian directory. There is an open bug 794438 for the KDE Partition Manager. 
The current package is broken in Sid. In the thread it was mentioned that the 
KDE Neon has a working package. When I pulled the git repo it was only the 
Debian directory. So what I was following [1]the git-buildpackage manual  I 
cloned the partition manager git repo added the debian directory and was able 
to build a working package. However after looking closely I begun to wonder if 
I understood what I was doing. So the upstream repro appears to be on version 
2.9.90 and preparing to go to version 3.0. However the version that I built was 
1.0.3. I did not understand how this could have happened. Then looking in the 
Debian directory I saw that the watch file is referencing a Source Forge repo 
with the v1.0.3 tar ball. So my question is when I built the package did I need 
to pull code from the upstream repo? Did the build tools just pull the tar file 
down from sf and used it instead? Any help understanding will be appreciated[2]

Thanks   
Herminio


[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=794438
[2] 
http://honk.sigxcpu.org/projects/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.import.html#GBP.IMPORT.UPSTREAM-GIT


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.