Hi,
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:01:37AM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> $ tar taf ../Mothur.1.33.3.tar.xz|wc -l
> $ tar taf ../mothur_1.33.3+dfsg.orig.tar.xz|wc -l
>
> what do you get?
the mothur issue is settled but I think there is a new problem with
ordinary *.tgz files now: Please try:
a
Hi,
forget about this - I was using the wrong uscan. Sorry for the noise.
BTW, I do not see any sense in having the original *.zip, a xz
compressed tar.xz and the stripped +dfsg.orig.tar.xz. IMHO the latter
is fully sufficient and the intermediate result (.tar.xz) could go away.
Kind regards
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 21.03.2014, 23:31 +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> So, we actually are using the same command with different results which
> is really strange.
so starting in an empty directory (maybe that makes a difference), if
you do
$ apt-get source mothur
$ cd mothur-1.33.0+dfsg/
$ path-t
Hi Joachim,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:27:16PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > debian/rules get-orig-source
> >
> > (which does the same as you above). BTW, I personally see no point in
> > keeping a non-stripped archive - it is perfectly fine to have only the
> > result of the stripped d
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 21.03.2014, 23:24 +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> Hmmm, that's strange. At my side the orig.tar.xz is a symlink to the
> other file. I'm using
>
> debian/rules get-orig-source
>
> (which does the same as you above). BTW, I personally see no point in
> keeping a non-stri
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:42:35PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Did you check Mothur.1.33.3.tar.xz or mothur_1.33.3+dfsg.orig.tar.xz – a
> mistake I also did earlier today:
see below ...
> $ apt-get source mothur
> Paketlisten werden gelesen... Fertig
> Abhängigkeitsbaum wird aufgebaut.
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 21.03.2014, 22:19 +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> Hm, I guess something remains wrong. While uscan says:
>
> Newest version on remote site is 1.33.3, local version is 1.33.0+dfsg
> (mangled local version number 1.33.0)
> => Forcing download as requested
> -- Downloading
Hi Joachim,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 04:59:49PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, den 21.03.2014, 14:17 +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> > > > BTW, we should create a mothur-Package like test-case. I just tested
> > > > your last commit and I can not get the __MACOSX go away. :-(
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 21.03.2014, 14:17 +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> > > BTW, we should create a mothur-Package like test-case. I just tested
> > > your last commit and I can not get the __MACOSX go away. :-(
> >
> > My suggestion was not implemented until now. Please try again.
>
> H, I c
Hi Joachim,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:56:43PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > > Personally I’d find
> > > File-Excluded: foo/bar.js
> > > to exclude
> > > * foo/bar.js (in case of a dirty tarball)
> > > * pkg-1.0/foo/bar.js (as in your implementation) as well as
> > > * pkg-1.0/doc
10 matches
Mail list logo
