=== Mission-Critical is now known as MissionCritical [19:42] Hallo I have problems receiving mails from @ubuntu.com redirected on hotmail [20:45] Hi, how does launchpad update the version in debian controll when building a ppa? [20:45] does it use a given updateversion.sh script? [21:04] can anyone please help on this? The dependencies in our ppa is broken because of this. [21:06] S0M30N3: It doesn't change it. It buids the package the same as e.g. pbuilder. [21:07] but it add '~quantal' to the version which causes our problems [21:08] You may be building via a recipe, which is a preprocessor to the actual build. [21:09] any alteration there is entirely under your control [21:10] with recipe do you mean something in makefile? [21:10] !recipe [21:11] so I would have to catch the version string in makefile and run our updateversion.sh with this [21:11] no [21:11] https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/SourceBuilds/GettingStarted [21:12] ah, okay. [21:12] Thx I'll read this and try out. [21:13] If you are not using recipes, Launchpad won't be changing the version number. So you probably are using recipes, in which case you deliberately setup the version editing that is happening. [21:42] hmm. Looks like the recipes are not inside our trunk. [21:42] and I can't find them on launchpad neither [21:42] So I'll have to wait for the mate who manage the ppa [21:43] the build tells you which recipe it used, just click on it [21:44] can you please point me where? [21:45] this is the ppa https://launchpad.net/~bit-team/+archive/stable [21:45] looks like I'm blind ;) [21:45] which package? [21:46] backintime-gnome-1.0.14~quantal for example [21:48] well there's no recipes being used by the looks of it, so whoever made the package set the version directly [21:48] https://launchpad.net/~bit-team/+archive/stable/+packages [21:49] Okay. So I'll talk back to him. [21:49] fwiw it looks fine to me [21:49] you need to have different versions in different release series [21:50] unless you copy the same binaries into each [21:50] thats right. but dependencies are broken because 1.0.14 != 1.0.14~quantal [21:51] dependencies are wrong then I guess [21:51] yes. but only in the ppa [21:51] fair enough [21:51] if I update version manually and build the package everything works fine [21:52] The uploader must be failing to correctly construct the source package, then [22:41] S0M30N3: exact version dependencies are usually wrong [22:45] I tried to use '>= 1.0.14' but that didn't match '1.0.14~quantal' neither [22:46] Well, indeed [22:46] ~ has the meaning of 'less than nothing' in version comparisons [22:47] You probably shouldn't be using it here, but people have grown to use it without understanding its true meaning [22:47] good to know [22:49] so if we use '1.0.14-quantal' (minus instead of tilde) it would work with '>=1.0.14' ? [22:49] Well [22:49] hyphens are special [22:49] You probably want a hyphen, but not like that :) [22:50] minus/hyphen has the special meaning of separating the upstream and packaging version parts [22:50] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version [22:51] The smallest change you could make to get the existing packaging working would be to express the dependency as (>= 1.0.14~) [22:51] which is a bit of a mind bending relation [22:51] :) [22:52] Yet rather common [22:52] The majority of >= dependencies probably ought to have a ~ on the end of them [22:52] the packaging version stuff ties itself in so many knots [22:52] maxb: hehe. I tried this. But than my normal dependnecies with '1.0.14' doesn't work anymore [22:52] S0M30N3: I don't understand? [22:52] bigjools: indeed [22:53] bigjools: its indicative of some underlying failures [22:53] completely [22:53] if I add a tilde to the version in dependency this would work for the ppa [22:53] but not if I build the package myself [22:53] And it would work for a version of '1.0.14' as well [22:54] '~' is less than nothing [22:54] Which means '' is greater than it [22:54] So 1.0.14 > 1.0.14~ [22:55] bigjools: single timeline of versions for dealing with multiple independent timelines [22:55] lifeless: yeah I was thinking the same thing - not sure how I'd solve it though :) [22:56] I suspect whatever else anyone would come up with would suffer an equal amount of different problems :) [22:56] S0M30N3: I don't see why a tiled-appended version wouldn't work for your own builds too [22:57] just a sec. I'll double-check. May be I'm wrong [22:58] Because 1.0.14 satisfies >= 1.0.14~ [23:04] maxb: yes that works. Don't know what I've done when I checked this earlier. === glebihan_ is now known as glebihan [23:07] bigjools: options - decouple the timeline so you have N timelines, or stop doing things that create N timelines [23:07] bigjools: e.g. we could say 'only ever build on one version of ubuntu' and do the copy forward autoamtically. [23:08] so you pick the oldest version you want to support and then build there exclusively. === glebihan_ is now known as glebihan === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk