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