Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not convinced that the majority of these uncaught problems are
> significant enough to worry about. I would be surprised, for example,
> if using a non-pristine tarball was ever regarded as a release-critical
> issue.
>
> Why slow down NEW processing
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 05:18:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The last part is certainly true, although I don't think that makes the
> check at that point unuseful. The initial upload is the point at which
> it's the most likely that significant misunderstandings or structural
> flaws will show
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 04:27:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Joerg has been moving towards doing more of this, and I applaud him for
>> doing so. I hope that anyone else who works on NEW does the same.
>> It's one of our best opportunities to raise th
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 04:27:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Joerg has been moving towards doing more of this, and I applaud him for
> doing so. I hope that anyone else who works on NEW does the same. It's
> one of our best opportunities to raise the general quality of the archive
> up-front,
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While I personally try to take care to only upload pristine .orig.tar.gz
> for my own packages (and even think that using the delete option might
> be preferable to unpacking and packing again) I distinctly think that
> this is out of the scope of NEW
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> But I think it is a problem that such a thing was able to get in.
> As it is not a policy rule broken, I fear less that noone has even
> looked at the file. But the alternative of someone looking, realising this
> mistake and just letting it in anyway is not very confortin
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080316 21:14]:
> There is no requirement that we ship pristine tarballs as downloaded from
> upstream.
But doing so without a good reason or in this case without any reason at
all just makes no sense. I do not know why it is only in the DevRef but
not in polic
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 09:07:48AM -0400, Kevin Coyner wrote:
> > I think you want the one that uploaded the .orig.tar.gz, so:
> > lynx -dump
> > http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/rhinote/news/20060625T184700Z.html | gpg
> > --verify
> > gpg: Signature made Sun 11 Jun 2006 03:11:54 PM CEST using DS
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 12:19:45PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080315 21:12]:
> > $ cat /srv/ftp.debian.org/queue/reject/rhinote_0.7.0-2_i386.reason
> > Rejected: md5sum and/or size mismatch on existing copy of
> > rhinote_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz.
> > Rejected
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 02:13:32PM +, The Fungi wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 09:07:48AM -0400, Kevin Coyner wrote:
> > I'm going to contact upstream and ask if they would consider
> > releasing a new version so that this can get cleaned up.
> Wouldn't prepending an epoch be less drastic? D
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 02:13:32PM +, The Fungi wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 09:07:48AM -0400, Kevin Coyner wrote:
> > I'm going to contact upstream and ask if they would consider
> > releasing a new version so that this can get cleaned up.
>
> Wouldn't prepending an epoch be less drastic?
The Fungi wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 09:07:48AM -0400, Kevin Coyner wrote:
> > I'm going to contact upstream and ask if they would consider
> > releasing a new version so that this can get cleaned up.
>
> Wouldn't prepending an epoch be less drastic? Doesn't sound like the
> mistake was upst
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 09:07:48AM -0400, Kevin Coyner wrote:
> I'm going to contact upstream and ask if they would consider
> releasing a new version so that this can get cleaned up.
Wouldn't prepending an epoch be less drastic? Doesn't sound like the
mistake was upstream's...
--
{ IRL(Jeremy_St
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 01:52:32PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote..
> > > But is there a way to know who the sponsor of rhinote_0.7.0-1 was?
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ lynx -dump
> > http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/rhinote/news/20080316T114705Z.html | gpg
> > --verify
> > gpg: Signature made
On 16/03/2008, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> But is there a way to know who the sponsor of rhinote_0.7.0-1 was?
Besides the “lynx -dump”-based solutions mentioned in this thread,
there's far easier:
| $ who-uploads rhinote # from devscripts
| Uploads for rhinote:
| 0.7.0-2 to unstable: Kevin Coyner <[
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 01:37:29PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080315 21:12]:
> >> $ cat /srv/ftp.debian.org/queue/reject/rhinote_0.7.0-2_i386.reason
> >> Rejected: md5sum and/or size mismatch on ex
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080315 21:12]:
>> $ cat /srv/ftp.debian.org/queue/reject/rhinote_0.7.0-2_i386.reason
>> Rejected: md5sum and/or size mismatch on existing copy of
>> rhinote_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz.
>> Rejected: can not overwrite exi
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080315 21:12]:
> $ cat /srv/ftp.debian.org/queue/reject/rhinote_0.7.0-2_i386.reason
> Rejected: md5sum and/or size mismatch on existing copy of
> rhinote_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz.
> Rejected: can not overwrite existing copy of 'rhinote_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz'
> already
On 15/03/2008, Kevin Coyner wrote:
> Question: how do I get the newer, correct version of the
> .orig.tar.gz into the archives (replacing the earlier version
> uploaded previously that does not match upstream's)?
You can't replace a .orig.tar.gz in the archive. You have to bump the
version (I'm no
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 04:26:56PM -0400, Kevin Coyner wrote:
> Question: how do I get the newer, correct version of the
> .orig.tar.gz into the archives (replacing the earlier version
> uploaded previously that does not match upstream's)?
You need to give it a new version number - it is not poss
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 01:11:55PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote..
>
> $ cat /srv/ftp.debian.org/queue/reject/rhinote_0.7.0-2_i386.reason
> Rejected: md5sum and/or size mismatch on existing copy of
> rhinote_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz.
> Rejected: can not overwrite existing copy of 'rhinote_0.7.0.ori
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 03:59:22PM -0400, Kevin Coyner wrote:
> I'm sponsoring a package for someone off of d-mentors and tried to
> upload it last night. I never got the typical emails about the
> upload being processed, etc. Nor did I get a rejection email. So I
> googled a bit and tried the fol
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 03:59:22PM -0400, Kevin Coyner wrote..
> I'm sponsoring a package for someone off of d-mentors and tried to
> upload it last night. I never got the typical emails about the
> upload being processed, etc. Nor did I get a rejection email. So I
> googled a bit and tried
I'm sponsoring a package for someone off of d-mentors and tried to
upload it last night. I never got the typical emails about the
upload being processed, etc. Nor did I get a rejection email. So I
googled a bit and tried the following command:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l /org/ftp.debian.org/queue/
24 matches
Mail list logo
