On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:00:11PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > The reason I wanted to try a recompressed tarball was that I use
> > cvs-buildpackage to make builds easier; if I have to futz about
> > copying the old .tar.gz into place it could be a little inconvenient,
> > but it's much better
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:00:11PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > The reason I wanted to try a recompressed tarball was that I use
> > cvs-buildpackage to make builds easier; if I have to futz about
> > copying the old .tar.gz into place it could be a little inconvenient,
> > but it's much bette
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:33:17PM +1000, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
> I've just built a new version of byacc that way, and the .changes and
> .dsc file look correct, but I suppose the real test is whether dinstall
> will be happy.
You can logon to auric and run 'dinstall -n ' on the
package to se
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:33:17PM +1000, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
> I've just built a new version of byacc that way, and the .changes and
> .dsc file look correct, but I suppose the real test is whether dinstall
> will be happy.
You can logon to auric and run 'dinstall -n ' on the
package to s
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:00:11PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> .orig.tar.gz should never change between debian revisions. Pre-pool
> dinstall used to allow it, which sucked. dinstall no longer allows it.
> Since a debian revision is just a debian revision, the upstream
> code (ie the contents of
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:19:31AM +1000, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > apt-get source byacc
> > and you have the old .tar.gz. (Or is there a good reason for a newly
> > compressed tarball?)
>
> The reason I wanted to try a recompressed tarball was tha
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 06:38:27PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> This is neither pragmatic, nor could I find anything in policy or the
> packaging manual that states this. The reason this is not a useful
> guideline is that *many* upstream tarballs are not a
> ./$package-$version/code format. Some
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:00:11PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> .orig.tar.gz should never change between debian revisions. Pre-pool
> dinstall used to allow it, which sucked. dinstall no longer allows it.
> Since a debian revision is just a debian revision, the upstream
> code (ie the contents o
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:19:31AM +1000, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > apt-get source byacc
> > and you have the old .tar.gz. (Or is there a good reason for a newly
> > compressed tarball?)
>
> The reason I wanted to try a recompressed tarball was th
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 06:38:27PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> This is neither pragmatic, nor could I find anything in policy or the
> packaging manual that states this. The reason this is not a useful
> guideline is that *many* upstream tarballs are not a
> ./$package-$version/code format. Som
> " " == tony mancill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7 Jan 2001, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
>> The orig.tar.gz file should be pristine (does someone have the
>> pointer to the policiy about this?). Basically NEVER rebuild
>> it.
>>
>> It should be the original file dow
On 7 Jan 2001, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> The orig.tar.gz file should be pristine (does someone have the pointer
> to the policiy about this?). Basically NEVER rebuild it.
>
> It should be the original file downloaded from the upstream author
> without any changes so that the md5sum compares to an
> " " == tony mancill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7 Jan 2001, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
>> The orig.tar.gz file should be pristine (does someone have the
>> pointer to the policiy about this?). Basically NEVER rebuild
>> it.
>>
>> It should be the original file do
On 7 Jan 2001, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> The orig.tar.gz file should be pristine (does someone have the pointer
> to the policiy about this?). Basically NEVER rebuild it.
>
> It should be the original file downloaded from the upstream author
> without any changes so that the md5sum compares to a
> " " == Jason Henry Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> apt-get source byacc and you have the old .tar.gz. (Or is there
>> a good reason for a newly compressed tarball?)
> The reason I wanted to try a recompressed tarball was that
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> apt-get source byacc
> and you have the old .tar.gz. (Or is there a good reason for a newly
> compressed tarball?)
The reason I wanted to try a recompressed tarball was that I use
cvs-buildpackage to make builds easier; if I have to futz about
copying th
> " " == Jason Henry Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> apt-get source byacc and you have the old .tar.gz. (Or is there
>> a good reason for a newly compressed tarball?)
> The reason I wanted to try a recompressed tarball was tha
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> apt-get source byacc
> and you have the old .tar.gz. (Or is there a good reason for a newly
> compressed tarball?)
The reason I wanted to try a recompressed tarball was that I use
cvs-buildpackage to make builds easier; if I have to futz about
copying t
On 7 Jan 2001, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Jason,
> The byacc upstream tarball on ftp.debian.org 52916 bytes long, but on
> my development system, it compresses to 52930 bytes. (There hasn't
> been an upload of this package in about a year, shame on me.) I need
> to do an upload to fix
On 20010107T171546+1000, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
> Should I file a bug against ftp.debian.org
It would be closed as a non-bug.
> or alter the filesize and
> md5sum in the .changes and .dsc, resign and upload that?
Don't do that. It would probably make your upload broken.
What I suggest is th
Just use the old one from ftp.debian.org.
If the .orig.tar.gz already exists in .. (relative to the source dir), a new
one won't be generated.
-brad
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 05:15:46PM +1000, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The byacc upstream tarball on ftp.debian.org 52916 bytes long, but o
On 7 Jan 2001, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Jason,
> The byacc upstream tarball on ftp.debian.org 52916 bytes long, but on
> my development system, it compresses to 52930 bytes. (There hasn't
> been an upload of this package in about a year, shame on me.) I need
> to do an upload to fix
Hi,
The byacc upstream tarball on ftp.debian.org 52916 bytes long, but on
my development system, it compresses to 52930 bytes. (There hasn't
been an upload of this package in about a year, shame on me.) I need
to do an upload to fix several bugs, there have been no upstream
changes (I think it's
On 20010107T171546+1000, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
> Should I file a bug against ftp.debian.org
It would be closed as a non-bug.
> or alter the filesize and
> md5sum in the .changes and .dsc, resign and upload that?
Don't do that. It would probably make your upload broken.
What I suggest is t
Just use the old one from ftp.debian.org.
If the .orig.tar.gz already exists in .. (relative to the source dir), a new
one won't be generated.
-brad
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 05:15:46PM +1000, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The byacc upstream tarball on ftp.debian.org 52916 bytes long, but
Hi,
The byacc upstream tarball on ftp.debian.org 52916 bytes long, but on
my development system, it compresses to 52930 bytes. (There hasn't
been an upload of this package in about a year, shame on me.) I need
to do an upload to fix several bugs, there have been no upstream
changes (I think it'
26 matches
Mail list logo
