Re: wrong version number ?

2016-07-08 Thread Jakub Wilk 

* Herbert Fortes , 2016-07-07, 15:30:

I am doing a QA for dvbackup package. I do not need
a Sponsor.

debian/changelog:
dvbackup (1:0.0.4-8) unstable; urgency=low ( I am doing )
dvbackup (1:0.0.4-7) unstable; urgency=low ( current version )

After 'debuild':

dvbackup_0.0.4-8_amd64.deb ( no epoch )


Related bug: #645895.

--
Jakub Wilk

Re: wrong version number ?

2016-07-08 Thread Adam Borowski 
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 08:01:03PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> I guess a filename containing ":" character might be problematic in linux
> (not techically problematic, but better to avoid escapes)

: is AFAIK supported by all Linux filesystems, although in some cases it
comes at the cost of breaking the official spec (iso9660 variants).

On the other hand, it drastically breaks interoperability with Windows, and
there's quite a few scenarios where users may want to carry .debs either
through a Windows system (for example due to lacking means to download a
file) or over media that's accessed from Windows (CD, USB stick).

-- 
An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy.

Re: wrong version number ?

2016-07-07 Thread Sean Whitton 
Hello,

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 09:53:01PM +0200, James Cowgill wrote:
> > Why ?
> 
> I'm not entirely sure, but it's been like this since forever.

>From the dpkg author:



-- 
Sean Whitton

Re: wrong version number ?

2016-07-07 Thread Herbert Fortes 
Em Qui, 2016-07-07 às 17:05 -0300, Herbert Fortes escreveu:
> Em Qui, 2016-07-07 às 20:01 +, Gianfranco Costamagna escreveu:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > > I'm not entirely sure, but it's been like this since forever.
> > 
> > I guess a filename containing ":" character might be problematic in linux
> > (not techically problematic, but better to avoid escapes)
> > 
> > so, even if the filename is 
> > "dvbackup_0.0.4-7_amd64.changes", the content is:
> > dvbackup (1:0.0.4-7) unstable; urgency=low
> > 
> 

Thank you guys!



regards,
-- Herbert Parentes Fortes Neto (hpfn)

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

Re: wrong version number ?

2016-07-07 Thread Herbert Fortes 
Em Qui, 2016-07-07 às 18:38 +, Gianfranco Costamagna escreveu:
> Hi
> > debian/changelog:
> 
> > dvbackup (1:0.0.4-8) unstable; urgency=low ( I am doing )
> > dvbackup (1:0.0.4-7) unstable; urgency=low ( current version )
> > 
> > After 'debuild':
> > 
> 
> 
> sure, it has an epoch since a lot of time
> 
> https://packages.qa.debian.org/d/dvbackup/news/20120512T030239Z.html
> 
> 
> I don't know debuild, but
> pull-debian-source dvbackup
> cd dvbackup-*
> dpkg-buildpackage
> should work.
> 
> (I didn't try)
> G.
> 

I checked the .changes file.
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 15:10:48 -0300
Source: dvbackup
Binary: dvbackup
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 1:0.0.4-8           <- (Here)

epoch is there.

I checked another package (gthumb) and is the
same situation. I guess is all right.



regards,
-- 
Herbert Parentes Fortes Neto (hpfn)

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

Re: wrong version number ?

2016-07-07 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna 
Hi,

>I'm not entirely sure, but it's been like this since forever.

I guess a filename containing ":" character might be problematic in linux
(not techically problematic, but better to avoid escapes)

so, even if the filename is 
"dvbackup_0.0.4-7_amd64.changes", the content is:
dvbackup (1:0.0.4-7) unstable; urgency=low


nothing to worry about I think,

G.

Re: wrong version number ?

2016-07-07 Thread James Cowgill 
Hi,

On Thu, 2016-07-07 at 15:30 -0300, Herbert Fortes wrote:
> I am doing a QA for dvbackup package. I do not need
> a Sponsor.
> 
> debian/changelog:
> dvbackup (1:0.0.4-8) unstable; urgency=low ( I am doing )
> dvbackup (1:0.0.4-7) unstable; urgency=low ( current version )
> 
> After 'debuild':
> 
> dvbackup_0.0.4-8_amd64.deb ( no epoch )
> 
> $ apt-get download dvbackup
> dvbackup_1%3a0.0.4-7_amd64.deb ( epoch )

This is normal. By default, dpkg-deb does not include the epoch in the
filename, whereas when apt downloads packages it renames it. This
usually isn't a problem because dpkg ignores the filename anyway.

> Why ?

I'm not entirely sure, but it's been like this since forever.

James

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

Re: wrong version number ?

2016-07-07 Thread Herbert Fortes 
Em Qui, 2016-07-07 às 18:38 +, Gianfranco Costamagna escreveu:
> Hi
> > debian/changelog:
> 
> > dvbackup (1:0.0.4-8) unstable; urgency=low ( I am doing )
> > dvbackup (1:0.0.4-7) unstable; urgency=low ( current version )
> > 
> > After 'debuild':
> > 
> 
> 
> sure, it has an epoch since a lot of time
> 
> https://packages.qa.debian.org/d/dvbackup/news/20120512T030239Z.html
> 
> 
> I don't know debuild, but
> pull-debian-source dvbackup
> cd dvbackup-*
> dpkg-buildpackage
> should work.
> 

It did not.

piuparts is ok:
[...]
11m31.7s DEBUG: Command ok: ['chroot', '/tmp/tmpa_k5UW', 'eatmydata', 'dpkg', 
'-i', 'tmp/dvbackup_0.0.4-8_amd64.deb']
[...]
11m39.7s DEBUG: Recording chroot state
11m41.2s INFO: PASS: Installation, upgrade and purging tests.
11m41.5s DEBUG: Starting command: ['umount', '/tmp/tmpa_k5UW/dev/shm']
11m41.6s DEBUG: Command ok: ['umount', '/tmp/tmpa_k5UW/dev/shm']
11m41.6s DEBUG: Starting command: ['umount', '/tmp/tmpa_k5UW/dev/pts']
11m41.6s DEBUG: Command ok: ['umount', '/tmp/tmpa_k5UW/dev/pts']
11m41.6s DEBUG: Starting command: ['umount', '/tmp/tmpa_k5UW/proc']
11m41.6s DEBUG: Command ok: ['umount', '/tmp/tmpa_k5UW/proc']
11m41.6s DEBUG: Starting command: ['rm', '-rf', '--one-file-system', 
'/tmp/tmpa_k5UW']
11m41.9s DEBUG: Command ok: ['rm', '-rf', '--one-file-system', '/tmp/tmpa_k5UW']
11m41.9s DEBUG: Removed directory tree at /tmp/tmpa_k5UW
11m41.9s INFO: PASS: All tests.
11m41.9s INFO: piuparts run ends.



regards,
-- Herbert Parentes Fortes Neto (hpfn)

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

Re: wrong version number ?

2016-07-07 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna 
Hi
>debian/changelog:

>dvbackup (1:0.0.4-8) unstable; urgency=low ( I am doing )
>dvbackup (1:0.0.4-7) unstable; urgency=low ( current version )
>
>After 'debuild':
>


sure, it has an epoch since a lot of time

https://packages.qa.debian.org/d/dvbackup/news/20120512T030239Z.html


I don't know debuild, but
pull-debian-source dvbackup
cd dvbackup-*
dpkg-buildpackage
should work.

(I didn't try)
G.

wrong version number ?

2016-07-07 Thread Herbert Fortes 
Hi,

I am doing a QA for dvbackup package. I do not need
a Sponsor.

debian/changelog:
dvbackup (1:0.0.4-8) unstable; urgency=low ( I am doing )
dvbackup (1:0.0.4-7) unstable; urgency=low ( current version )

After 'debuild':

dvbackup_0.0.4-8_amd64.deb ( no epoch )

$ apt-get download dvbackup
dvbackup_1%3a0.0.4-7_amd64.deb ( epoch )

Why ?



regards,
-- 
Herbert Parentes Fortes Neto (hpfn)

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