On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2012/8/17 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>: > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2012/8/17 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>: > >>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> 2012/8/15 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>: > >>>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:38 AM, > >>>>> <danstowell-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org> wrote: > >>>>>> The following commit has been merged in the master branch: > >>>>>> commit 3c1278c9f79054a1d80ec96fbcb6e44946a771cb > >>>>>> Author: Dan Stowell <danstow...@users.sourceforge.net> > >>>>>> Date: Mon Aug 13 14:14:53 2012 +0100 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Convert upstream's post-hoc 3.5.4 tweak into a patch > >>>>> > >>>>> But the new upstream tarball has been imported! This means that there > >>>>> are non-debian/ changes between upstream and debian branch. > >>>>> > >>>>> I presume you did this because of some interaction between > >>>>> git-buildpackage and pristine-tar. Can you explain? > >>>> > >>>> Yes: I did it because debuild bailed out on detecting source changes > >>>> between 3.5.4~repack and 3.5.4~repack-1 (or suchlike). I'm sorry that > >>>> the git history is messy; upstream changed their mind about 3.5.4 > >>>> after I'd pushed the first 3.5.4 import, which meant there was nothing > >>>> I could do to write it out of history. It may have been a bad choice > >>>> to import the second tarball, but on the other hand that's the only > >>>> way to make the recorded md5sum match against what's on upstream's > >>>> servers. :/ > >>> > >>> I think the problem is that it was imported with the same name as the > >>> older one. > >> > >> Where do you see it being imported with the same name? > >> > >> I don't see that. The upstream tags, the content of the pristine-tar > >> branch, the log, seem to me to show one import of ~repack and one > >> import of ~repack-2. > > > > Sorry, I confused myself. What is likely to be the problem is that the > > changelog has version 1:3.5.4~repack-2. That means (for all debian > > tools) that this is upstream version 1:3.5.4~repack, debian revision > > number 2. It should be 1:3.5.4~repack-2-2 for it to pickup the -2 in > > the upstream version. > > OK. Two attached patches reflect my local changes, which seem to build > with the right tarball etc. I should push?
Yes, please. I just realized we were talking via private mail. Replying to the list this time. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
