Re: gdal_1.10.1+dfsg-3_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Bas, On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:17:39AM +0100, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: On 01/12/2014 11:48 PM, Debian FTP Masters wrote: gdal_1.10.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz: Does not match file already existing in the pool. It looks like the initial gdal_1.10.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz was not checked out from the pristine-tar branch. I downloaded the orig.tar.gz from snapshot.debian.org, and compared it them to one checked out by pristine-tar, the pristine-tar one doesn't contain the .gitignore file. Now I wonder if it makes sense to fix the pristine-tar branch to use the tarball as uploaded to the archive. I think it does, because the upstream tarball also contains the .gitignore file. Yes. I think enabling usual git-buildpackage to create a package resulting in the very same orig.tar.gz as it is on the Debian mirror should be the way to go. Just tell me if this is fixed and I should do a rebuild. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: gdal_1.10.1+dfsg-3_amd64.changes REJECTED
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 09:05:16AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: Yes. I think enabling usual git-buildpackage to create a package resulting in the very same orig.tar.gz as it is on the Debian mirror should be the way to go. Just tell me if this is fixed and I should do a rebuild. Just as a side note I use git-buildpackage for all packages in d-gis tree. -- Francesco P. Lovergine ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: gdal_1.10.1+dfsg-3_amd64.changes REJECTED
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 09:13:39PM +0100, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: Just as a side note I use git-buildpackage for all packages in d-gis tree. Further investigation shows that a missing --pristine-tar was not the cause. My commit of the new upstream version deleted the .gitignore file, while it is included in the upstream tarball and not touched by the repacking. http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-grass/gdal.git;a=commitdiff;h=864bb9ee6237551dc25377be642bf59cb6c48644 Adding the .gitignore file back to the upstream branch makes the pristine-tar checkout tarball identical to the one in the archive. I have checked out the original source via `apt-get source gdal` and I get: $ md5sum gdal_1.10.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz 65f908560558b4801daa6946e52a03a6 gdal_1.10.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz If I'm using the pristine-tar from the git repository I get: $ md5sum gdal_1.10.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz d4960006e29570a8e5c0c8824f7c725c gdal_1.10.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz (File size is different as well.) So something remains wrong here. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: gdal_1.10.1+dfsg-3_amd64.changes REJECTED
On 01/13/2014 11:26 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 09:13:39PM +0100, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: Just as a side note I use git-buildpackage for all packages in d-gis tree. Further investigation shows that a missing --pristine-tar was not the cause. My commit of the new upstream version deleted the .gitignore file, while it is included in the upstream tarball and not touched by the repacking. http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-grass/gdal.git;a=commitdiff;h=864bb9ee6237551dc25377be642bf59cb6c48644 Adding the .gitignore file back to the upstream branch makes the pristine-tar checkout tarball identical to the one in the archive. I have checked out the original source via `apt-get source gdal` and I get: $ md5sum gdal_1.10.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz 65f908560558b4801daa6946e52a03a6 gdal_1.10.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz If I'm using the pristine-tar from the git repository I get: $ md5sum gdal_1.10.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz d4960006e29570a8e5c0c8824f7c725c gdal_1.10.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz (File size is different as well.) So something remains wrong here. Correct. I was comparing the wrong file, and rejoiced prematurely. This looked good, but wasn't the orig.tar.gz checked out by pristine-tar, that lived in /tmp :( 65f908560558b4801daa6946e52a03a6 gdal_1.10.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz 65f908560558b4801daa6946e52a03a6 gdal_1.10.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz.archive d4960006e29570a8e5c0c8824f7c725c gdal_1.10.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz.pristine I've commited the orig.tar.gz from the archive in the pristine-tar branch, checking that out does work. Kind Regards, Bas -- GnuPG: 0xE88D4AF1 (new) / 0x77A975AD (old) ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: gdal_1.10.1+dfsg-3_amd64.changes REJECTED
On 01/12/2014 11:48 PM, Debian FTP Masters wrote: gdal_1.10.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz: Does not match file already existing in the pool. It looks like the initial gdal_1.10.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz was not checked out from the pristine-tar branch. I downloaded the orig.tar.gz from snapshot.debian.org, and compared it them to one checked out by pristine-tar, the pristine-tar one doesn't contain the .gitignore file. Now I wonder if it makes sense to fix the pristine-tar branch to use the tarball as uploaded to the archive. I think it does, because the upstream tarball also contains the .gitignore file. Kind Regards, Bas -- GnuPG: 0xE88D4AF1 (new) / 0x77A975AD (old) ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
