Bug#683505: notmuch: FTBFS if built twice in a row: unrepresentable changes to source

2012-08-01 Thread Jakub Wilk
Source: notmuch Version: 0.13.2-1 Severity: important User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: qa-doublebuild notmuch FTBFS if built twice in a row: | dpkg-source -b notmuch-0.13.2 | dpkg-source: info: using source format `3.0 (quilt)' | dpkg-source: info: building notmuch using existing ./no

Bug#683505: notmuch: FTBFS if built twice in a row: unrepresentable changes to source

2012-08-01 Thread Jakub Wilk
* David Bremner , 2012-08-01, 12:14: | dpkg-source: error: cannot represent change to test/tmp.json/mail/.notmuch/xapian/record.baseB: binary file contents changed | dpkg-source: error: add test/tmp.json/mail/.notmuch/xapian/record.baseB in debian/source/include-binaries if you want to store th

Bug#683505: notmuch: FTBFS if built twice in a row: unrepresentable changes to source

2012-08-01 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Wed, Aug 01 2012, David Bremner wrote: > I guess the problem here is that the notmuch build process does not > clean up the test directories in case of failing tests. I guess it > probably should if the user explicitly runs "make clean". If a test is failing shouldn't the package build fail as

Bug#683505: notmuch: FTBFS if built twice in a row: unrepresentable changes to source

2012-08-01 Thread David Bremner
Jakub Wilk writes: > | dpkg-source: error: cannot represent change to > test/tmp.json/mail/.notmuch/xapian/record.baseB: binary file contents changed > | dpkg-source: error: add test/tmp.json/mail/.notmuch/xapian/record.baseB in > debian/source/include-binaries if you want to store the modified

Bug#683505: notmuch: FTBFS if built twice in a row: unrepresentable changes to source

2012-08-01 Thread Tomi Ollila
On Wed, Aug 01 2012, David Bremner wrote: > Jakub Wilk writes: > >> | dpkg-source: error: cannot represent change to >> test/tmp.json/mail/.notmuch/xapian/record.baseB: binary file contents changed >> | dpkg-source: error: add test/tmp.json/mail/.notmuch/xapian/record.baseB in >> debian/source

Bug#683505: notmuch: FTBFS if built twice in a row: unrepresentable changes to source

2012-08-01 Thread David Bremner
Jameson Graef Rollins writes: > If a test is failing shouldn't the package build fail as well? That > sounds like the real issue to me. As I mentioned on IRC, the test only fails on the Debian build machines (building in a clean chroot using sbuild is not enough) so it isn't really clear how to

Bug#683505: notmuch: FTBFS if built twice in a row: unrepresentable changes to source

2012-08-01 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Wed, Aug 01 2012, David Bremner wrote: > As I mentioned on IRC, the test only fails on the Debian build machines > (building in a clean chroot using sbuild is not enough) so it isn't > really clear how to duplicate the it. Perhaps building in a clean > virtual machine without networking would d

Bug#683505: notmuch: FTBFS if built twice in a row: unrepresentable changes to source

2012-08-02 Thread Tomi Ollila
On Thu, Aug 02 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: > On Wed, Aug 01 2012, David Bremner wrote: >> As I mentioned on IRC, the test only fails on the Debian build machines >> (building in a clean chroot using sbuild is not enough) so it isn't >> really clear how to duplicate the it. Perhaps buildin

Bug#683505: notmuch: FTBFS if built twice in a row: unrepresentable changes to source

2012-08-02 Thread Austin Clements
Quoth Jameson Graef Rollins on Aug 01 at 8:10 pm: > On Wed, Aug 01 2012, David Bremner wrote: > > As I mentioned on IRC, the test only fails on the Debian build machines > > (building in a clean chroot using sbuild is not enough) so it isn't > > really clear how to duplicate the it. Perhaps build

Bug#683505: notmuch: FTBFS if built twice in a row: unrepresentable changes to source

2012-08-02 Thread Tomi Ollila
On Thu, Aug 02 2012, Austin Clements wrote: > Quoth Jameson Graef Rollins on Aug 01 at 8:10 pm: >> On Wed, Aug 01 2012, David Bremner wrote: >> > As I mentioned on IRC, the test only fails on the Debian build machines >> > (building in a clean chroot using sbuild is not enough) so it isn't >> >