Sure, having reviewed now what was merged I'd say I have nothing to
complain about :)
Thank you for your work, and sorry for lagging behind!
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu.
This bug was fixed in the package ubuntu-dev-tools - 0.175ubuntu1
---
ubuntu-dev-tools (0.175ubuntu1) focal; urgency=medium
[ Dan Streetman ]
* lpapicache: remove new requirement to pass arch to getBinaries()
(LP: #1862286)
* ubuntu-upload-permission: sort packagesets by
Hi @mapreri,
I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and pushed the fixes for this
and the other 3 bugs mentioned in my last comment, and uploaded to
focal. Of course, please feel free to revert anything I uploaded if you
feel it's wrong. Note that for this bug I did use @cjwatson's commit.
I
@mapreri I moved @cjwatson's patch, along with the simpler patches for bug
1862286, bug 1862372, and bug 1863119, to the bottom of my patch queue, and
included them all in this mr:
https://code.launchpad.net/~ddstreet/ubuntu-dev-tools/+git/ubuntu-dev-tools/+merge/378722
My work queue still has
** Merge proposal unlinked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~ddstreet/ubuntu-dev-tools/+git/ubuntu-dev-tools/+merge/378746
** Merge proposal unlinked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~ddstreet/ubuntu-dev-tools/+git/ubuntu-dev-tools/+merge/377880
--
You received this bug notification because you
** Merge proposal linked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~ddstreet/ubuntu-dev-tools/+git/ubuntu-dev-tools/+merge/378722
** Merge proposal linked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~ddstreet/ubuntu-dev-tools/+git/ubuntu-dev-tools/+merge/378746
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
> Can we just review and land Colin's patch please...
I have no problem if Colin's patch is merged, although I should point
out my patch completely removes the _lp_url() function.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in
> Can we just review and land Colin's patch please...
I just realised that my words could be taken to mean that I'm being
impatient at mapreri. I didn't mean that - only that if we just consider
Colin's patch alone, then there's far less review work necessary. I'm
hoping we can be less demanding
> ack, no hurry, thanks.
Actually this blocks progress in fixing a class of import failures in
git-ubuntu, so I would appreciate getting this landed sooner rather than
later. I'd prefer not to have to patch the git-ubuntu snap's bundled
ubuntu-dev-tools as that opens up a whole bunch of extra
ack, no hurry, thanks.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1860456
Title:
ubuntutools.archive.UbuntuSourcePackage().pull() fails
To manage notifications about this bug go
just busy due to pre/post FOSDEM + FOSDEM fringe + family event right after
that; TBH I haven't had the chance to look at this at all, but it has been
not even 2 weeks since Colin's MR…
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 8:30 PM Dan Streetman
wrote:
> @mapreri @cjwatson any decision on this? My
@mapreri @cjwatson any decision on this? My ubuntu-dev-tools delta is
growing again...
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1860456
Title:
my latest PR now removes _lp_url() completely...I'm much happier
removing the hardcoded url construction and using the lp api methods to
get the proper urls.
** Merge proposal linked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~ddstreet/ubuntu-dev-tools/+git/ubuntu-dev-tools/+merge/377880
--
You received
** Merge proposal unlinked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~ddstreet/ubuntu-dev-tools/+git/ubuntu-dev-tools/+merge/377880
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1860456
Title:
personally, I'd prefer to junk _lp_url() entirely and use proper lpapi
methods to get the urls.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1860456
Title:
I'm not sure why you "strongly recommend" not to apply my patch; it uses
the same url as your patch:
>>> from ubuntutools.archive import UbuntuSourcePackage
>>> import pprint
>>> pp = pprint.PrettyPrinter()
>>> pp.pprint(UbuntuSourcePackage('akonadi',
>>>
** Merge proposal linked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~cjwatson/ubuntu-dev-tools/+git/ubuntu-dev-tools/+merge/378055
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1860456
Title:
I've proposed my patch now. I have a backport for bionic as well,
though I'll wait to propose that until the one against master is
approved.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu.
> a flag such as `--no-verify-checksums` sounds a very bad idea
btw we don't verify checksums for any downloaded binaries, but it's probably a
good idea to do so:
https://code.launchpad.net/~ddstreet/ubuntu-dev-tools/+git/ubuntu-dev-tools/+merge/377952
--
You received this bug notification
ack, let's see what Colin has, unassigning myself.
** Changed in: ubuntu-dev-tools (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Dan Streetman (ddstreet) => (unassigned)
** Changed in: ubuntu-dev-tools (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, 1:55 pm Dan Streetman,
wrote:
> > I've seen such packages uploaded last year too
>
> that's unfortunate and quite bad.
>
Well, it's a feature, although one that does create confusion in many
situations. So it's probably good that very few people know of it ^^
I'd still
> I've seen such packages uploaded last year too
that's unfortunate and quite bad.
> And a flag such as `--no-verify-checksums` sounds a very bad idea to
have to me.
ok i removed that patch; the MR still resolves this bug.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
It's not just jaunty. I've seen such packages uploaded last year too.
Though I must say it's so rare that I forgot such packages existed…
And a flag such as `--no-verify-checksums` sounds a very bad idea to
have to me.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
> The problem AIUI is something to do with ambiguity when multiple
different orig tarballs are associated with a single upstream version
string
ouch, that is *really* bad. But indeed, that's the case here. Oh well,
it's jaunty, right?
updated MR fixes it:
>>> from ubuntutools import archive
> Since the checksum actually is incorrect for this package/version...
I believe that's inaccurate. I suggest you wait to see Colin's patch. He
was going to prepare an MP when he has time. The problem AIUI is
something to do with ambiguity when multiple different orig tarballs are
associated with
Since the checksum actually is incorrect for this package/version, the
MR will allow this to work if you add verify_signature=False:
>>> archive.UbuntuSourcePackage('akonadi', '1.1.2-0ubuntu1~jaunty1').pull()
Public key not found, could not verify signature
Checksum for akonadi_1.1.2.orig.tar.gz
** Merge proposal linked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~ddstreet/ubuntu-dev-tools/+git/ubuntu-dev-tools/+merge/377880
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1860456
Title:
more specifically, it says
Checksum for akonadi_1.1.2.orig.tar.gz does not match.
DownloadError: File akonadi_1.1.2.orig.tar.gz could not be found
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu.
Colin has a working patch for this.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1860456
Title:
ubuntutools.archive.UbuntuSourcePackage().pull() fails
To manage notifications about
29 matches
Mail list logo
