On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 09:27:35AM +0200, Julien Puydt wrote: > Ah, it looks at the whole history, so even if things get back to pure > upstream, it still complains.
i do not understand. it has references to the upstream branch and to the patched branch (which is supposedly merged into the packaging branch). if something gets from "patched" to "upstream" by upstream, the patch that gets unnecessary will disappear. > A whole thread says it's making it harder... and I committed upstream > changes in there because I found committed changes there: I usually don't do > that. to my knowledge there were no upstream changes committed to the packaging branch (master). (except in 90b70c2cce0b). the whole thread is based on some misunderstanding about that. > Doing things by hand actually works... that's good. i keep forgetting how. > 2. try "git-dpm status" -- it complains about not finding the upstream 2.4.4 > tarball ; > 3. generate said tarball for git-dpm (so much for doing things by hand being > more involved!) all i know is that the tarball is in the pristine tar branch. i don't know of any mechanism that would trigger the checkout automagically. (tell me about it!). > 4. try "git-dpm status": > git-dpm: ERROR: 'upstream' does not contain previously recorded revision > 'f14355e9070e235a68b933b3da8c238468e9a0e2'! the upstream branch was not up to date. perhaps because i didn't care to push it. my bad. sorry. > So even without my culprit commit, I think things were already in a bad > state... it is in place now. git-dpm status is happy now (after the revert). cheers felix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
