Sorry for the fail on FTP-masters email address (which also got the mail bounced from alioth). Replying to keep threading consistent but quoting the whole mail below).
On Mon, 2017-07-03 at 14:49 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > Hi, > > I recently had a problem with an upload to the archive, likely due to bad > interaction between the tooling I use to build packages and the archive > manager. > > I usually build my packages using pbuilder, with SOURCE_ONLY_CHANGES=yes in > .pbuilderrc, so pbuilder will ask to generate a _source.changes along with > the > _<arch>.changes files. > > When uploading to the archive, I do a complete (meaning arch-any + arch-all) > build to be sure, then upload only the _source.changes so everything gets > rebuilt by the autobuilders. It worked just fine for every upload I did to > sid > and experimental. > > However, I recently did that for an upload targeted at stretch-security, and > unfortunately this caused a problem on security-master, where dak couldn't > process the build by the amd64 autobuilder because an _amd64.buildinfo file > was already present. It was part of my upload because it was included in the > _source.changes file generated during the pbuilder run. > > I'm not completely sure what needs fixing here, but: > > - when doing a complete build, something will generate a _<arch>.buildinfo > file (using dpkg-genbuildinfo), maybe its part of debhelper, I'm not sure > what > control I, dpkg or pbuilder have on this; > - nothing generates a _source.buildinfo file; > - when pbuilder generates the source changes file, it calls dpkg-genchanges > -S > after the build, which apparently includes any buildinfo file > unconditionnaly > (http://sources.debian.net/src/dpkg/1.18.24/scripts/dpkg-genchanges.pl/#L310 > ) > > So few questions: > > - would it make sense to have a _source.buildinfo when building a package? > - would it make sense to not include _<arch>.buildinfo when generating a > _source.changes? > - should the archive accept a _source.changes file with arch specific stuff > inside (it's does currently, although the security archive failed later)? > > I yet didn't file any bug (to pbuidler, debhelper or dpkg-dev) because I'm > really unsure where the problem(s) lies. > > Any help appreciated here. Please keep on CC, I'm not subscribed to debian- > devel anymore. > > Regards, -- Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
