Re: normaliz_3.0.0+ds-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 06:04:23AM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote: > > I've just run your get-orig-source rule and ended up with a 3rd > > version of the orig.tar.xz. > > I guess re-compressing with uscan is not reproducible (yet?). > > It appeared that tar does not produced reproducible balls.

Re: normaliz_3.0.0+ds-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Forum: On 21/11/15 13:06, Graham Inggs wrote: > On 20 November 2015 at 14:06, Jerome BENOIT wrote: >> It appears that the faulty one is the one in the archive, if it makes sense >> to say so. >> For a least two reasons:

Re: normaliz_3.0.0+ds-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On 22 November 2015 at 07:04, Jerome BENOIT wrote: > I have just done the dirty manoeuvre and some checks: > it should be ok now. It looks OK to me. Shall I go ahead and upload? -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org

Re: normaliz_3.0.0+ds-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Graham: On 22/11/15 08:27, Graham Inggs wrote: > On 22 November 2015 at 07:04, Jerome BENOIT wrote: >> I have just done the dirty manoeuvre and some checks: >> it should be ok now. > > It looks OK to me. Shall I go

Re: normaliz_3.0.0+ds-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Again: On 21/11/15 13:06, Graham Inggs wrote: > On 20 November 2015 at 14:06, Jerome BENOIT wrote: >> It appears that the faulty one is the one in the archive, if it makes sense >> to say so. >> For a least two reasons:

Re: normaliz_3.0.0+ds-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On 20 November 2015 at 14:06, Jerome BENOIT wrote: > It appears that the faulty one is the one in the archive, if it makes sense > to say so. > For a least two reasons: > 1] ` ./debian/rules get-orig-source ' gives the one in the git; > 2] the one in the archive is