Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #13553
| From | Carsten Schoenert <c.schoenert@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.maint.python |
| Subject | Re: python-django-js-asset_1.2.2-3_source.changes REJECTED |
| Date | 2021-09-19 23:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CZceu-3Oh-23@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <CZaFH-2HO-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <CZaFH-2HO-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <CZaFH-2HO-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Hi Antonio, thanks for your quick feedback! Am 19.09.21 um 21:24 schrieb Antonio Terceiro: > Looking from my side, the tarball from the archive (apt source > python-django-js-asset) and the one generated by pristine-tar are > identical: > > 4b6a2c8625b8e96bbc4ff1588a27238d7d418b03 /tmp/python-django-js-asset_1.2.2.orig.tar.gz > 4b6a2c8625b8e96bbc4ff1588a27238d7d418b03 /tmp/archive/python-django-js-asset_1.2.2.orig.tar.gz > > From reading the REJECT email, I think it implies that the .dsc/.changes > you uploaded refer to an orig tarball with 6360 bytes. Do you still have > the exact artifacts that you uploaded? No, not completely. But I played around a bit with gbp and pristine-tar too and I was able to recreate a tarball which has the same size and the same hashes as the *.tar.gz in the archive and the one you've posted by using pristine-tar manually. If I clean out all completely and build the package from scratch by gbp I get again a wrong size and of course also different hashes. Currently I've no real clue why gbp is creating here different results, will look again at this once Guido is around, I'm sure he can blame me that I'm doing something wrong. :P I was able to upload 1.2.2-3 successful recently so no big problem any more. -- Regards Carsten
Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: python-django-js-asset_1.2.2-3_source.changes REJECTED Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> - 2021-09-19 21:30 +0200
Re: python-django-js-asset_1.2.2-3_source.changes REJECTED Carsten Schoenert <c.schoenert@t-online.de> - 2021-09-19 23:10 +0200
Re: python-django-js-asset_1.2.2-3_source.changes REJECTED Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2021-09-20 09:30 +0200
Re: python-django-js-asset_1.2.2-3_source.changes REJECTED Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> - 2021-09-20 13:30 +0200
Re: python-django-js-asset_1.2.2-3_source.changes REJECTED Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2021-09-20 17:20 +0200
Re: python-django-js-asset_1.2.2-3_source.changes REJECTED Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2021-09-20 17:30 +0200
Re: python-django-js-asset_1.2.2-3_source.changes REJECTED Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2021-09-21 03:20 +0200
Re: python-django-js-asset_1.2.2-3_source.changes REJECTED Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-09-20 21:50 +0200
Re: python-django-js-asset_1.2.2-3_source.changes REJECTED Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> - 2021-09-21 23:10 +0200
Re: python-django-js-asset_1.2.2-3_source.changes REJECTED Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2021-09-22 00:40 +0200
Re: writing debian/gbp.conf considered harmful [was: python-django-js-asset_1.2.2-3_source.changes REJECTED] Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-09-22 09:30 +0200
csiph-web