Hi Nicholas, On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 3:50 PM Nicholas D Steeves <[email protected]> wrote: > > Vincent Cheng <[email protected]> writes: > > > Hi Micha, > > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 10:52 PM Micha Lenk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Vincent, > >> > >> I have no clue about why these rejects happened and consider them > >> unexpected as well. I'd appreciate a dak expert to comment here. > >> > >> Would you mind uploading the package somewhere else so that there is some > >> sample input data for use by a debug install of dak available? > > > > Sure thing, I've uploaded the source package to > > https://people.debian.org/~vcheng/wesnoth/ for your inspection. Thanks > > for taking a look at this! > > > > Regards, > > Vincent > > It looks to me like your changes file > (https://people.debian.org/~vcheng/wesnoth/wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1_source.changes) > is bad because buildinfo is missing. Here's the changes file when I > build your backport (from git). > > -- > Format: 1.8 > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:07:09 -0800 > Source: wesnoth-1.18 > Architecture: source > Version: 1:1.18.3-1~bpo12+1 > Distribution: bookworm-backports > Urgency: medium > Maintainer: Debian Games Team <[email protected]> > Changed-By: Vincent Cheng <[email protected]> > Changes: > wesnoth-1.18 (1:1.18.3-1~bpo12+1) bookworm-backports; urgency=medium > . > * Rebuild for bookworm-backports. > . > wesnoth-1.18 (1:1.18.3-1) unstable; urgency=medium > . > * New upstream stable release. > Checksums-Sha1: > bee262e1e20163ae0a902c8290ad71e8a9b29080 3429 > wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1.dsc > e8eb3d2a032181b8a779bf25d90b27ed26196bc0 179752 > wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1.debian.tar.xz > a9cc0428fa52849476fb5527b5a5a73cb70ddb06 23833 > wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1_amd64.buildinfo > Checksums-Sha256: > c0cc8d043726ffc769bb945e624a85b68a82d30903329320266c5792771de065 3429 > wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1.dsc > 6c484a20c41f5e3eb089197e54c0933278165bc951f4f239407dcac15d4b0b1d 179752 > wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1.debian.tar.xz > 9f3277f5c544da96b73e0dcabf6485c9218c2ce830243b5b7e21ade20cb8d7e6 23833 > wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1_amd64.buildinfo > Files: > 8e0de33443e44a083713805fed64bc0a 3429 games optional > wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1.dsc > 38193ba804def394445c3273d378ac12 179752 games optional > wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1.debian.tar.xz > ce57123b91e535d9cf0adc116963b1d4 23833 games optional > wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1_amd64.buildinfo > > -- > > I can't remember if buildinfo is a formal requirement, but given how > many packages I've recently seen uploaded without having been installed > to the uploader's development system, I'm in favour of enforcing that an > uploader successfully built a package on their development system. The > buildinfo is part of the proof the developer did this.
1) It's a source only upload, why does buildinfo matter here / what useful information does a source-only buildinfo convey about the upload? 2) A previous source-only upload I made for wesnoth-1.18 also excluded the buildinfo file and was successfully accepted into backports. Regards, Vincent
