On 04/02/2025 01:53, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 11:11:44PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2/3/25 3:03 PM, Alexandre Rossi wrote:
...
For similar changes in which the binary packages names were also changed,
there is no problem, they were correctly built (uwsgi-plugin-{java,ruby}
and uwsgi-plugin-pypy is completely new).
Yup, and this can never work. You need to build binary packages with a
version higher than what's in the archive. The archive would otherwise
reject it if it were to be built.
$ rmadison -s unstable uwsgi-plugin-gccgo
uwsgi-plugin-gccgo | 0.0.2 | unstable | source
uwsgi-plugin-gccgo | 2.0.28-1+b2 | unstable | armel, armhf, i386, riscv64,
s390x
uwsgi-plugin-gccgo | 2.0.28+8+0.0.2 | unstable | amd64, arm64, mips64el,
ppc64el
So you need to either produce a binary version that's higher than
2.0.28[...],
...
That's what the package already does, and it is working.
The root problem is that it is fundamentally impossible to reliably
guess the versions of the binary packages built by a source package,
since these can be set to any value during the build and many packages
in the archive include the versions of build dependencies into the
versions of their binary packages.
wanna-build might not have a better option here than assuming
binary version = source version, but that's not 100% reliable.
Why doesn't it just build the package? If it later then gets rejected, then so
be it. It wouldn't be much different than wanna-build "rejecting" it (except for
saving a few build cycles, but then a situation like this has already wasted a
lot of developer cycles). I'm sure there's a good reason for the check, I
suppose I'm just missing it...
Cheers,
Emilio
