/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2013/07/18/#launchpad.txt

=== thomi is now known as thomi|lunch
=== nesthib` is now known as nesthib
=== thomi|lunch is now known as thomi
=== tasdomas_afk is now known as tasdomas
pmjdebru1jnhi folks08:32
pmjdebru1jnI'm getting some builds failure on my PPA, which I can't reproduce locally:08:33
pmjdebru1jnhttps://launchpadlibrarian.net/145214967/buildlog_ubuntu-precise-amd64.stockfish_3.0.0%2Bgit20130508-2pmjdebruijn1~precise_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz08:33
pmjdebru1jnit's basically a backported package, with no real changes... so this probably builds fine on the Debian build farm as well08:33
dobeypmjdebru1jn: is the part where it fails, trying to connect to external network sites?13:17
pmjdebru1jnI don't think so13:17
pmjdebru1jnat least I have no reason to think that13:18
pmjdebru1jnI'd have to take a closer look locally of course13:18
pmjdebru1jnfrom what I can tell13:18
pmjdebru1jnit's an optimization step13:18
pmjdebru1jnwhere code is executed and benchmarked13:18
pmjdebru1jnto determine compiler options13:18
pmjdebru1jn(which I guess may not be the best idea for package build anyhow)13:18
dobeywell, whatever it is doing, is hanging13:19
pmjdebru1jnso it's killed for inactivity?13:26
dobeyyes13:27
pmjdebru1jnI'll have a closer look then13:28
pmjdebru1jnthanks13:28
saiarcot895I need some help on versioning13:33
saiarcot895Upstream has development versions on odd-numbered versions and stable versions on even-numbered versions13:34
pmjdebru1jncan you give concrete examples13:34
saiarcot895Flightgear/Simgear/fgfs-base13:34
pmjdebru1jnI mean with version numbers13:34
pmjdebru1jnand why would odd/even versioning be a problem for you?13:35
saiarcot8952.11 is development version, and 2.12 is stable (well, to be released, version)13:35
pmjdebru1jn(typically that's type convenient)13:35
saiarcot895it's not the odd/even thing13:35
pmjdebru1jnok, what's the issue then:)13:35
pmjdebru1jns/type/quite/13:35
pmjdebru1jn:)13:35
saiarcot895when a stable version is about to be released, they branch off from the trunk, create the 2.12 branch, and update the versioning in the application itself to be 2.12, but it's a prerelease13:36
saiarcot895sort of like beta or rc13:36
saiarcot895there aren't official idenitifiers except for the git revision13:36
dobeythat's a process problem, not a version problem exactly13:36
dobeybut hopefully they also bump the trunk version at the same time13:37
saiarcot895trunk gets bumped up to next development version13:37
pmjdebru1jnwell13:38
pmjdebru1jnyou can use ~13:38
dobeyso what's the problem?13:38
saiarcot895my idea was to use something like 2.12.0~<time>+git<version>13:38
pmjdebru1jn2.12~rc is lower than 2.1213:38
pmjdebru1jnI wouldn't use time13:38
dobeyyes, use 2.12~git$TIMESTAMP13:38
pmjdebru1jncommit count is often use13:38
pmjdebru1jnso you'd get something like 1:1.1.4+302~ge92f16013:39
dobeygit doesn't have "commit counts" really. it has incomprehensible hashes, which are not constantly increasing13:39
pmjdebru1jnsince the git sha isn't sequential13:39
pmjdebru1jndobey: it has13:39
pmjdebru1jnor at least you can "get" them13:39
saiarcot895from the log13:39
pmjdebru1jnso that version is 302 commits past the last tag13:39
pmjdebru1jnwith the last commit checksum starting with e92f16013:40
pmjdebru1jnwith the g indicating a git version13:40
dobeyi wouldn't use the hash at all13:40
pmjdebru1jnthe problem with time is that it's ambiguous13:40
dobeytime isn't ambiguous13:41
pmjdebru1jncommit count + hash specify a very point in the repository13:41
dobeytime of commit in GMT is unique13:41
saiarcot895but if it's yyyymmddhhmm, then it's constantly increasing13:41
pmjdebru1jndobey: I mean how time related to commits13:41
pmjdebru1jnrelates13:41
dobeypmjdebru1jn: there are no two commits at the exact same time13:41
saiarcot895true, but I was just planning on using my time zone13:41
pmjdebru1jndobey: yes, but you'd have to manually match to time to the last commit13:42
saiarcot895but then you have the git hash, so you can get the commit13:42
dobeyand time is unique enough anyway13:42
pmjdebru1jnhaving the hash in the version can be very convenient at times13:42
dobeyit's better to put it in the changelog if you want to put it somewhere13:42
dobeybecause it isn't sequential13:43
dobeynot being sequential means it can break the versions tring13:43
pmjdebru1jnwhich is why it's prefixed by the commit count, which ensures sequentiality13:43
pmjdebru1jn1.1.4+302~ge92f160 do mind the +30213:43
saiarcot895speaking of which, how do you get the commit count?13:43
saiarcot895it's not in the log13:43
pmjdebru1jnin saiarcot895 case that would be 2.12~302~g.....13:43
pmjdebru1jnsaiarcot895: I have it in a script at home, so I can't look it up ATM :(13:44
dobeyimport to bzr, and bzr revno13:44
pmjdebru1jnheh13:44
pmjdebru1jnI'm fairly sure git can do the directly13:44
pmjdebru1jnsaiarcot895: try git describe, see what that says13:44
dobey"git rev-list HEAD --count" apparently13:45
dobeybut i don't think there's a variable in launchpad recipes that gives you that13:45
dobeysaiarcot895: are you talking about recipes? or are you asking about making a tarball and doing a manual upload?13:46
saiarcot895interesting; git describe gives me version/2.11.0-226-gc2f899713:46
saiarcot895tarball and manual upload13:46
dobeywell you definitely don't want multiple "-" characters in the version13:46
saiarcot895at any rate, I can't use that version because it's definitely not 2.1113:47
saiarcot895also, 2.12 is about to be released, and there's an beta/rc branch13:49
saiarcot895if I use +, won't that rank above the official 2.12 when it's released13:49
saiarcot895pmjdebru1jn: if I use +, won't that rank above the official 2.12 when it's released?13:52
dobeyif it's 2.12+ something, it will, unless official release is 2.12.0, then 2.12.0 should be higher than 2.12+; but that's why you should use 2.12~foo-0ubuntu1~ppa1~serices113:53
saiarcot895dobey: well, upstream is considering it as 2.12.0, but I suppose I could just call it 2.1213:55
saiarcot895and call the official version 2.12.013:55
dobeysaiarcot895: what matters is what the official version actually is. if a tarball is foo-2.12.0.tar.gz you don't package it as foo-2.12; they aren't the same thing13:55
saiarcot895dobey: the official version will be 2.12.0; the development/rc versions don't have official tarballs, but their version files say 2.12.013:57
dobeysaiarcot895: then you should make tarballs that are 2.12.0~revcount+git$hash.tar.gz or whatever, and version the packages as 2.12.0~revcount+git$hash-0ubuntu1~ppa1~series1 or similar13:58
dobeyor 2.12.0~rcN.tar.gz if it's a specific rc release maybe.13:58
dobeyand add the ~revcount+git$hash after the ~rcN13:59
saiarcot895dobey: ok, will do that14:00
saiarcot895Frozen builds: https://launchpad.net/~mir-team/+archive/staging/+build/4803107 and https://launchpad.net/~mir-team/+archive/staging/+build/480446015:03
=== tasdomas is now known as tasdomas_afk
=== matsubara is now known as matsubara-lunch
=== dpm_ is now known as dpm
=== matsubara-lunch is now known as matsubara

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!