On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 08:39:52PM -0500, Federico Grau wrote:
On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 09:02:36AM -0500, Federico Grau wrote:
...
seeking an upload of v2.3.0-3 of go-serial. This version has a d/patches fix
to resolve ppc64le build errors.
As there are cycles I'm now seeking an upload of golang-github-la5nta-wl2k-go
v0.8.0-1. This is the next (and hopefully last for this wave) dependency for
the `pat' ham radio email utility package.
With wl2k v0.8.0-1 now in unstable, I'm now seeking an upload of pat v0.12.0 to hopefully close out this wave.
On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 09:02:36AM -0500, Federico Grau wrote:
...
seeking an upload of v2.3.0-3 of go-serial. This version has a d/patches fix
to resolve ppc64le build errors.
As there are cycles I'm now seeking an upload of golang-github-la5nta-wl2k-go v0.8.0-1. This is the next (and hopefully last for this wave) dependency for the `pat' ham radio email utility package.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 11:11:03AM -0500, Federico Grau wrote:...
With wl2k v0.8.0-1 now in unstable, I'm now seeking an upload of pat v0.12.0
to hopefully close out this wave.
I will review and sponsor an upload. Please push your pristine-tar
branch and updated upstream branch to Salsa. At the moment, I only see
the debian/sid and an outdated upstream branch [1].
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 08:54:14AM -0800, tony mancill wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 11:11:03AM -0500, Federico Grau wrote:...
With wl2k v0.8.0-1 now in unstable, I'm now seeking an upload of pat v0.12.0
to hopefully close out this wave.
I will review and sponsor an upload. Please push your pristine-tar
branch and updated upstream branch to Salsa. At the moment, I only see
the debian/sid and an outdated upstream branch [1].
Appreciate the review and feedback tony. I'll admit to still developing familiarity with git and it's possible I missed a step.
The pat project does not use a "pristine-tar" branch, given its use of golang and the suggestion from debian-golang ( https://go-team.pages.debian.net/workflow-changes.html#wf-2017-11-pristine-tar).
I believe to have pushed the "upstream" tags. Below is a review of my current
dev environment, where there does appear to be an "upstream/0.12.0" tag.
Is there something I should try differently (I'm on oftc irc if realtime may help)?
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 02:21:11PM -0500, Federico Grau wrote:...
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 08:54:14AM -0800, tony mancill wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 11:11:03AM -0500, Federico Grau wrote:...
With wl2k v0.8.0-1 now in unstable, I'm now seeking an upload of pat v0.12.0
to hopefully close out this wave.
I will review and sponsor an upload. Please push your pristine-tar branch and updated upstream branch to Salsa. At the moment, I only see the debian/sid and an outdated upstream branch [1].
Appreciate the review and feedback tony. I'll admit to still developing familiarity with git and it's possible I missed a step.
Looking closer at the salsa git UI, I see that the `pat' upstream branch was last updated for v0.10.0 (and not the current v0.12.0). I'm pretty sure I progressed the update using "gbp import-orig", but may have missed an option or uploading to salsa all branches after the work. Unfortunately I've since whacked and rebuilt that dev environment. I'm exploring now how to update the
upstream branch (while the debian/sid branch is already updated).
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 10:30:30PM -0500, Federico Grau wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 02:21:11PM -0500, Federico Grau wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 08:54:14AM -0800, tony mancill wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 11:11:03AM -0500, Federico Grau wrote:...
With wl2k v0.8.0-1 now in unstable, I'm now seeking an upload of pat v0.12.0
to hopefully close out this wave.
I will review and sponsor an upload. Please push your pristine-tar branch and updated upstream branch to Salsa. At the moment, I only see the debian/sid and an outdated upstream branch [1].
...Appreciate the review and feedback tony. I'll admit to still developing familiarity with git and it's possible I missed a step.
Looking closer at the salsa git UI, I see that the `pat' upstream branch was
last updated for v0.10.0 (and not the current v0.12.0). I'm pretty sure I progressed the update using "gbp import-orig", but may have missed an option
or uploading to salsa all branches after the work. Unfortunately I've since
whacked and rebuilt that dev environment. I'm exploring now how to update the
upstream branch (while the debian/sid branch is already updated).
I believe I've identified steps to clean this up, but they require deleting a git tag, which I'm hesitant to try doing (if it's even possible for me). Performing these tests in my local dev environment they appear ok with no changes to debian/sid as expected. I welcome feedback or confirmation to the planned steps:
a) Delete the existing "upstream/0.12.0" tag
git tag -d upstream/0.12.0
b) Re-run "gbp import-orig" to populate the upstream branch and create a new tag
gbp import-orig -v --uscan --upstream-version=0.12.0
On Sun, Jan 02, 2022 at 01:46:22AM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
git checkout upstream
git merge --ff upstream/0.12.0
Thanks for the feedback Shengjing Zhu,
I've completed the suggested steps and pushed them to salsa.
Ready for further review, feedback, or upload as cycles are available.
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 12:37 PM Federico Grau <donfede@casagrau.org> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 10:30:30PM -0500, Federico Grau wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 02:21:11PM -0500, Federico Grau wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 08:54:14AM -0800, tony mancill wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 11:11:03AM -0500, Federico Grau wrote:...
With wl2k v0.8.0-1 now in unstable, I'm now seeking an upload of pat v0.12.0
to hopefully close out this wave.
I will review and sponsor an upload. Please push your pristine-tar branch and updated upstream branch to Salsa. At the moment, I only see
the debian/sid and an outdated upstream branch [1].
...Appreciate the review and feedback tony. I'll admit to still developing
familiarity with git and it's possible I missed a step.
Looking closer at the salsa git UI, I see that the `pat' upstream branch was
last updated for v0.10.0 (and not the current v0.12.0). I'm pretty sure I
progressed the update using "gbp import-orig", but may have missed an option
or uploading to salsa all branches after the work. Unfortunately I've since
whacked and rebuilt that dev environment. I'm exploring now how to update the
upstream branch (while the debian/sid branch is already updated).
I believe I've identified steps to clean this up, but they require deleting a
git tag, which I'm hesitant to try doing (if it's even possible for me). Performing these tests in my local dev environment they appear ok with no changes to debian/sid as expected. I welcome feedback or confirmation to the
planned steps:
a) Delete the existing "upstream/0.12.0" tag
git tag -d upstream/0.12.0
b) Re-run "gbp import-orig" to populate the upstream branch and create a new tag
gbp import-orig -v --uscan --upstream-version=0.12.0
Just
git checkout upstream
git merge --ff upstream/0.12.0
On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 01:38:55PM -0500, Federico Grau wrote:
On Sun, Jan 02, 2022 at 01:46:22AM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
git checkout upstream
git merge --ff upstream/0.12.0
Thanks for the feedback Shengjing Zhu,
I've completed the suggested steps and pushed them to salsa.
Ready for further review, feedback, or upload as cycles are available.
Hi Federico,
Do you mind also pushing your pristine-tar branch to Salsa? If you
don't have one, you should be able to run the following command from the
same directory as your git repo - that is the same directory where you
can successfully run gbp buildpackage:
pristine-tar commit ../build-area/pat_0.12.0.orig.tar.gz
or
pristine-tar commit ../tarballs/pat_0.12.0.orig.tar.gz
(or pat_0.12.0.orig.tar.xz, if that's what you have)
The reason your build is working locally is that the build system can
find the orig.tar.gz. On my system, after pulling the latest from
Salsa, the error is:
$ gbp buildpackage
gbp:info: Tarballs 'pat_0.12.0.orig.tar.gz' not found at '../tarballs/' gbp:warning: Pristine-tar branch "pristine-tar" not found
gbp:info: Creating /data/debian/sponsor/pat/build-area/pat_0.12.0.orig.tar.gz gbp:error: Error creating pat_0.12.0.orig.tar.gz: Pristine-tar couldn't checkout "pat_0.12.0.orig.tar.gz": pristine-tar: no pristine-tar branch found, use "pristine-tar commit" first
On Sun, Jan 2, 2022 at 2:47 AM tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 01:38:55PM -0500, Federico Grau wrote:
On Sun, Jan 02, 2022 at 01:46:22AM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
git checkout upstream
git merge --ff upstream/0.12.0
Thanks for the feedback Shengjing Zhu,
I've completed the suggested steps and pushed them to salsa.
Ready for further review, feedback, or upload as cycles are available.
Hi Federico,
Do you mind also pushing your pristine-tar branch to Salsa? If you
don't have one, you should be able to run the following command from the same directory as your git repo - that is the same directory where you
can successfully run gbp buildpackage:
pristine-tar commit ../build-area/pat_0.12.0.orig.tar.gz
or
pristine-tar commit ../tarballs/pat_0.12.0.orig.tar.gz
(or pat_0.12.0.orig.tar.xz, if that's what you have)
The reason your build is working locally is that the build system can
find the orig.tar.gz. On my system, after pulling the latest from
Salsa, the error is:
$ gbp buildpackage
gbp:info: Tarballs 'pat_0.12.0.orig.tar.gz' not found at '../tarballs/' gbp:warning: Pristine-tar branch "pristine-tar" not found
gbp:info: Creating /data/debian/sponsor/pat/build-area/pat_0.12.0.orig.tar.gz
gbp:error: Error creating pat_0.12.0.orig.tar.gz: Pristine-tar couldn't checkout "pat_0.12.0.orig.tar.gz": pristine-tar: no pristine-tar branch found, use "pristine-tar commit" first
You can get rid of this error by running `gbp buildpackage --git-no-pristine-tar`, or adding `pristine-tar=False` to
debian/gbp.conf .
On Sun, Jan 02, 2022 at 02:53:23AM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
You can get rid of this error by running `gbp buildpackage --git-no-pristine-tar`, or adding `pristine-tar=False` to
debian/gbp.conf .
Does the --git-no-pristine-tar option fit tony? I'm initially hesitant to introduce pristine-tar into this project, as it's not been used for past releases, and Taowa (currently on VAC) and I had elected not to use pristine-tar here. If that's the only path forward ok.
However, I am able to build from a freshly cloned directory without errors (though I've only use sbuild; trying default gbp buildpackage errors at signing changes for me, given I've no key).
PGP_OPTIONS
ARRAY:STRING type. Additional signing options for dpkg-buildpackage
Default:
$pgp_options = [
'-us',
'-uc'
];
The Hamradio Maintguide section on the VCS [1] refers to pristine-tar in
all of its examples, but doesn't explicitly state that it *must* be
used, and DEP-14 [2] doesn't give any explicit guidance beyond
specifying the branch name.
[1] https://salsa.debian.org/debian-hamradio-team/hamradio-maintguide/-/blob/master/vcs.rst
[2] https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/
If there is a team standard for this, we can update hamradio-maintguide.
Yes, I am able to build now too. I'm not sure why you're getting
prompted to sign changes. When I look at the manpage for sbuild.conf,
the defaults passed to dpkg-buildpackage should disable signing:
I am going to add the debian/gbp.conf file and made a few minor tweaks
based on the output of "lintian --pendantic" and then will upload and
tag (so be sure to pull debian/sid after you see the upload).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 235:07:26 |
| Calls: | 6,624 |
| Files: | 12,172 |
| Messages: | 5,319,707 |