[Bug 1007564] Re: [backportpackage] undocumented --key, --dont-sign options
** Changed in: ubuntu-dev-tools (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided => Low ** Changed in: ubuntu-dev-tools (Ubuntu) Status: New => Triaged -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU, which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1007564 Title: [backportpackage] undocumented --key, --dont-sign options To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-dev-tools/+bug/1007564/+subscriptions -- universe-bugs mailing list universe-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/universe-bugs
[Bug 1007042] Re: [backportpackage] fails but worked last week
We used to generate backport version numbers of the form VERSION_BEING_BACKPORTED~RELEASE_CODENAME1. It worked well at the time because it guaranteed that a backport of the same version to, e.g., natty would have a lower version number than the backport to oneiric, since the n would sort before o. That's important because we rely on the version numbers sorting like that for release upgrade paths with backports to work. Colin pointed out that this would break down when we ran out of letters and started wrapping around, and suggested that we instead switch to using the version number, which is what backportpackage now does. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU, which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1007042 Title: [backportpackage] fails but worked last week To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-dev-tools/+bug/1007042/+subscriptions -- universe-bugs mailing list universe-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/universe-bugs
[Bug 1007564] [NEW] [backportpackage] undocumented --key, --dont-sign options
Public bug reported: version 0.142 of ubuntu-dev-tools added some new options to backportpackage that aren't mentioned in the man page: -k, --key, --dont-sign ** Affects: ubuntu-dev-tools (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU, which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1007564 Title: [backportpackage] undocumented --key, --dont-sign options To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-dev-tools/+bug/1007564/+subscriptions -- universe-bugs mailing list universe-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/universe-bugs
[Bug 823829] Re: [backportpackage] create chroot if necessary
I don't like the assumption either -- my .pbuilderrc sets BASETGZ to
something else. What about spawning a shell that does something like
the following:
for f in /etc/pbuilderrc "${HOME}"/.pbuilderrc; do
! [ -f "${f}" ] || . "${f}" || exit 1
done
printf %s "${BASETGZ:-/var/cache/pbuilder/base.tgz}"
and then capture its output. That output should be the filename whose
existence should be tested for pbuilder builds.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/823829
Title:
[backportpackage] create chroot if necessary
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-dev-tools/+bug/823829/+subscriptions
--
universe-bugs mailing list
universe-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/universe-bugs
[Bug 1007042] Re: [backportpackage] fails but worked last week
By the way, what does this mean? "backportpackage: Switch to ~ubuntu12.04.1-style version numbers instead of ~precise1, to make our version numbers more future-proof." -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU, which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1007042 Title: [backportpackage] fails but worked last week To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-dev-tools/+bug/1007042/+subscriptions -- universe-bugs mailing list universe-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/universe-bugs
[Bug 1007042] Re: [backportpackage] fails but worked last week
Wouldn't it be better to tweak dpkg-source to look for "ubuntu", but not for "~ubuntu"? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU, which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1007042 Title: [backportpackage] fails but worked last week To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-dev-tools/+bug/1007042/+subscriptions -- universe-bugs mailing list universe-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/universe-bugs
Re: [Bug 1007042] [NEW] [backportpackage] fails but worked last week
subscribe ubuntu-backporters Hi Jeremy (2012.05.31_20:04:33_+0200) > This worked last week, but now fails. I'm filing against ubuntu-dev- > tools since I know that just got an update this week. It's fallout from the backport version schema change. The versions are now ~ubuntu12.04.1 instead of ~precise1 (as code names are due to wrap in the foreseeable future) That matches some code in the Ubuntu Vendor plugin to dpkg-source that looks for "ubuntu" in the version without @ubuntu.com in the Maintainer. This can be lowered from an error to a warning by un-exporting DEBEMAIL. Or we could update the maintainer field of backports. But that's up to the backporters. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU, which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1007042 Title: [backportpackage] fails but worked last week To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-dev-tools/+bug/1007042/+subscriptions -- universe-bugs mailing list universe-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/universe-bugs
