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
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 on
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 changes before
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
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 cannot
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 not
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 unstable/testing
* 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.
So,
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
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/fixing
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
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
changes
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 the
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
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 right
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
probably
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 good
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: sha256 check
failed. Rejected
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 explain this
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 .changes sha1 Rejected: epcr_2.3.9-1.dsc: sha256
20 matches
Mail list logo
