[12:08] <ScottK> Is http://paste.ubuntu.com/6024826/ expected behavior from soyuz?  It's correct that the .dsc file name was used before, but the package version has an epoch now.  Shouldn't that be OK?
[12:19] <codygarver> I have a strange build error involving ubuntu meta packages and germinate that only happens in launchpad builder. Anyone able to explain? https://code.launchpad.net/~elementary-os/+recipe/seed-metapackages-daily
[13:24] <wgrant> ScottK: The filenames on disk exclude the epoch.
[13:24] <wgrant> So the files conflict.
[13:27] <wgrant> codygarver: Try building the package locally.
[13:27] <wgrant> The source apparently doesn't include one of the files that it references.
[14:06] <Sonderblade> can you instruct launchpad to build your ppa for multiple ubuntu releases?
[14:10] <codygarver> wgrant: thanks a lot, solved it
[14:13] <Ampelbein> Sonderblade: Nope, you have to upload a different version for each release. (Like: libfoo 1.0-1ubuntu12.04.1 for precise, 1.0-1ubuntu12.10.1 for quantal etc)
[14:16] <Sonderblade> Ampelbein: so i need to change something in debian/changelog?
[14:17] <Ampelbein> Sonderblade: Yes.
[14:20] <smartboyhw> Sonderblade, I recommend you to do this: libfoo 1.0-1~ubuntu(release no.)~ppa1
[14:21] <Sonderblade> smartboyhw: why the tildes?
[14:22] <smartboyhw> Sonderblade, if one day an SRU for that package appears, it would make sure that the SRU will be newer than the PPA.
[14:31] <Sonderblade> but if i have version number like 0.96~ubuntu12.04~ppa1 then the *orig.tar file for the package also needs to have matching name doesn't it?
[14:33] <smartboyhw> Sonderblade, wait, is your application a native app?
[14:33] <Ampelbein> Sonderblade: Yes, because that version is called native. You need to have  a dash "-" between the upstream (orig.tar.gz) version and the debian revision. Like 0.96-0ubuntu12.04~ppa1
[14:34] <Ampelbein> Sonderblade: The latter case is non-native and likely what you want.
[14:34] <Sonderblade> smartboyhw: yes
[14:34] <smartboyhw> Sonderblade, oh
[14:34] <Ampelbein> Oh, ignore me then.
[14:34] <smartboyhw> Then, um, yes
[14:35] <smartboyhw> Sonderblade, just after you change the changelog version
[14:35] <smartboyhw> Please re-run debuild -S
[14:35] <smartboyhw> That should help
[14:40] <Sonderblade> it works but i can't upload it. launchpad says the version 0.96~ubuntu12.04~ppa1 is older than in the archive: 0.96~ubuntu12.04~ppa1 <= 0.96-0ubuntu13
[14:42] <Ampelbein> Sonderblade: So, your package is not native after all.
[14:43] <saiarcot895> Sonderblade: wouldn't the version have to be something like 0.96-0ubuntu14~12.04~ppa1 for it to go into a PPA?
[14:44] <Ampelbein> Sonderblade: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#What_is_the_difference_between_a_native_Debian_package_and_a_non-native_package.3F for the difference betwee native/non-native.
[14:45] <Sonderblade> saiarcot895: no. the old version string worked fine
[14:47] <Sonderblade> Ampelbein: no, it's not native in the debian/packaging sense (but it *is* native in another sense:))
[14:48] <smartboyhw> Sonderblade, uh hum when we mean "native" we mean native in packaging sense
[14:48] <Ampelbein> Sonderblade: As we were talking about packaging, I expected native to be used in that meaning.
[14:49] <Ampelbein> Sonderblade: Anyway, your version should be like saiarcot895 suggested. That makes it higher than what's in the archive, but lower than the next version that would go into the archive.
[14:50] <smartboyhw> Sonderblade, wait, what is the version of the package in Precise?
[14:51] <Sonderblade> smartboyhw: it's nonexistant
[14:51] <saiarcot895> Sonderblade: what's the name of the package?
[14:51] <Sonderblade> saiarcot895: factor
[14:53] <Sonderblade> it's the name i gave it. but it only exists in my ppa
[14:53] <saiarcot895> Sonderblade: that explains it
[14:54] <saiarcot895> Sonderblade: technically, I think you should have started the versioning as 0.96-0ubuntu1~N, where N is the patch release number (or build number, or something)
[14:55] <saiarcot895> Sonderblade: regardless, since it's not in the Ubuntu Archives (at least at the moment), you have a bit more flexibility with the versioning
[14:56] <Sonderblade> saiarcot895: i thought you said the version number should be on the format 0.96-0ubuntu14~12.04~ppa1?
[14:57] <saiarcot895> saiarcot895: at this point, I would do it like that, and then increment the ppa number for any patch/build updates
[14:57] <saiarcot895> Sonderblade: ^
[14:58]  * saiarcot895 just talked to myself. lol
[14:58] <saiarcot895> saiarcot895: when you release a new version (0.97, for example), I would have it as 0.97-0ubuntu1~12.04~ppa1
[14:58] <saiarcot895> Sonderblade: ^
[14:59] <saiarcot895> Sonderblade: then, if the package at that version goes into the main Ubuntu archives, the one in the archive (the official one) will be preferred over the one in the PPA (for that version, at least)
[22:26] <ScottK> wgrant: So an epoch only works if the version/revision is not repeated?  That seems a bit suboptimal.
[22:43] <wgrant> ScottK: That's correct, but deliberate, trivial to work around, and not an easily avoidable limitation.