* 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 policy.
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 conforting
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
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,
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 the
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 up.
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 to
* 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 in the
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 existing copy of
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 existing copy of
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 01:52:32PM +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 Sun 16 Mar
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...
--
{
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
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?
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?
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: can not
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 DSA key ID
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
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
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
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
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
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 not
24 matches
Mail list logo
