Hi,
On Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:38:38 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> >> Will the devscripts in stable be updated to handle this? If so, when?
> >> If not, why not?
> >
> > (If you're looking for an answer from the maintainers of a package it's
> > p
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 07:06:52PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:56:01 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>
> > This certainly good. However, perhaps dak should have been changed to
> > accept both format versions (1.7 and 1.8), instead of just rejecting the
> > old one
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, James Vega wrote:
that we have developers who can't pay
attention to debian-devel-announce.
... or rather who pay attention but are to stupid to parse it correctly
to obtain this very piece of information. Feel free to call me stupid because
to failied to see a connection
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:56:01 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> This certainly good. However, perhaps dak should have been changed to
> accept both format versions (1.7 and 1.8), instead of just rejecting the
> old one right away. This could have been continued until some fixed
> time after
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:56:01PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:34:06AM -0400, James Vega wrote:
> > On the plus side, debsign is now more resilient to future changes in the
> > Format of .changes files (as will mergechanges in the next upload). This
> > only
> >
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:34:06AM -0400, James Vega wrote:
>
> You're mixing stable and unstable tools. You have to expect that you may run
> into incompatibilities
I expect such a thing. For example, building packages with
svn-buildpackage runs a 'debian/rules clean' before going into the
chr
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 05:27:35PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Roberto C. Sánchez [Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:04:39 -0400]:
>
> > IMO, that sort of misses the point. While I maintain quite a few
> > packages in Debian, the only places I run unstable/testing are in one VM
> > (for testing/reproducing
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 07:04:39AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 08:48:21AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > 2.10.25 should migrate to testing over the weekend, so hopefully a bpo
> > package won't be too much longer. In the meantime it's fairly easy to
> > backport
* Roberto C. Sánchez [Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:04:39 -0400]:
> IMO, that sort of misses the point. While I maintain quite a few
> packages in Debian, the only places I run unstable/testing are in one VM
> (for testing/reproducing/fixing bugs that I cannot reproduce in stable)
> and in some chroots.
S
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 02:25:02PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Thibaut Paumard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Le 17 avr. 08 à 13:04, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit :
> >> IMO, that sort of misses the point. While I maintain quite a few
> >> packages in Debian, the only places I run unstab
Le 17 avr. 08 à 14:25, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
Thibaut Paumard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Le 17 avr. 08 à 13:04, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit :
The problem is the same with lintian, that you need to backport
regularly. (Lintian being arch:all, of course, that's much easier).
You do no
Thibaut Paumard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le 17 avr. 08 à 13:04, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit :
>> IMO, that sort of misses the point. While I maintain quite a few
>> packages in Debian, the only places I run unstable/testing are in
>> one VM
>> (for testing/reproducing/fixing bugs that I canno
Le 17 avr. 08 à 13:04, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit :
IMO, that sort of misses the point. While I maintain quite a few
packages in Debian, the only places I run unstable/testing are in
one VM
(for testing/reproducing/fixing bugs that I cannot reproduce in
stable)
and in some chroots. The po
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 08:48:21AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez wrote, Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:24 AM
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 04:25:46PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> >>do you have updated devscripts? debsign signs the dsc then updates the
> >>md5 hash in the chang
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> Will the devscripts in stable be updated to handle this? If so, when?
>> If not, why not?
>
> (If you're looking for an answer from the maintainers of a package it's
> probably safer to ask them directly rather than assuming they read every
> post
Roberto C. Sánchez wrote, Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:24 AM
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 04:25:46PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
do you have updated devscripts? debsign signs the dsc then updates the
md5 hash in the changes before signing that. It needs to update the sha
checks as well. The latest d
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 04:39:56PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt a écrit :
>> Andreas Tille wrote:
>>> Rejected: epcr_2.3.9-1.dsc: sha1 check failed.
>>> Rejected: epcr_2.3.9-1.dsc: actual file size (1289) does not match
>>> size (1052) in .cha
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 04:25:46PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Wed Apr 16 17:19, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > it is the third time that I've got this type of rejection. I faced
> > it two times with package gnumed-client and now with a different package.
> >
> > Is anybody able to e
Le Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 04:39:56PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt a écrit :
> Andreas Tille wrote:
> >Rejected: epcr_2.3.9-1.dsc: sha1 check failed.
> >Rejected: epcr_2.3.9-1.dsc: actual file size (1289) does not match
> >size (1052) in .changes sha1 Rejected: epcr_2.3.9-1.dsc: s
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 05:51:48PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>
>> fwiw, this was mentioned in the recent Misc Development News post to d-d-a.
>
> Yes, but I expect an up to date pbuilder to contain everything I
> need. Thinking about it chances are g
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
fwiw, this was mentioned in the recent Misc Development News post to d-d-a.
Yes, but I expect an up to date pbuilder to contain everything I
need. Thinking about it chances are good that the GPG key is not
copied to the building chroot and my assump
On Wed Apr 16 17:47, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Do I have to start pdebuild out of an "unstable" system? This
> would be a nuisance because I do not want to run unstable on this
> machine and regarded pbuilder as a very nice way to maintain a
> proper unstable chroot.
It depends where you run debsign
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Matthew Johnson wrote:
do you have updated devscripts?
Will this be updated by
sudo pbuilder update
?
debsign signs the dsc then updates the
md5 hash in the changes before signing that. It needs to update the sha
checks as well. The latest devscripts does.
I fail
Hi,
Andreas Tille wrote:
it is the third time that I've got this type of rejection. I faced
it two times with package gnumed-client and now with a different
package.
[...]
Rejected: epcr_2.3.9-1.dsc: sha1 check failed.
Rejected: epcr_2.3.9-1.dsc: actual file size (1289) does not match
On Wed Apr 16 17:19, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it is the third time that I've got this type of rejection. I faced
> it two times with package gnumed-client and now with a different package.
>
> Is anybody able to explain this and how can I avoid the problem. I
> just builded the package with
cr_2.3.9-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Rejected: epcr_2.3.9-1.dsc: sha1 check failed.
Rejected: epcr_2.3.9-1.dsc: actual file size (1289) does not match size (1052)
in .changes sha1
Rejected: epcr_2.3.9-1.dsc: sha256 check failed.
Rejected: epcr_2.3.9-1.dsc: actual file size (1289) does not match size (10
26 matches
Mail list logo
