=== benonsoftware is now known as Guest69253 === dpm_ is now known as dpm [06:09] hi wgrant, I've got an issue building packages on a silo PPA, whereby dh-exec variables are not being expanded during build. The effect is that I end up with a package that contains a path like /usr/lib/${DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH}. The packages build fine on my personal PPA, though. Any ideas what it could be? Is it because the PPAs are different (i.e. my PPA is a qemu-based one)? [06:10] Here't the build that has this issue: https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/landing-013/+build/6153400 [06:10] and here's the build that works as expected: https://launchpad.net/~dpm/+archive/ppa/+build/6151901 [06:10] account-plugin-evernote is the package where I noticed this [06:20] dpm: Those two source packages are not the same. I suspect the problem is in a difference between them. [06:20] Have you tried building them both locally? [06:21] - "framework": "ubuntu-sdk-14.04-dev2", [06:21] + "framework": "ubuntu-sdk-14.10-dev2", [06:21] Suspicious! [06:21] wgrant, that's weird, that line should not be different, but it shouldn't affect the build. Here's the only difference afaik: https://code.launchpad.net/~dpm/reminders-app/account-plugin-evernote-upload/+merge/225581 [06:23] I've built the one that works locally, let me try to build the one that's got the issue [06:28] dpm: Test builds of both confirm my theory that it's not a build environment bug. Built on just the primary archive, in identical sbuild chroots locally, one expands and one does not. [06:28] Some difference in the source package causes it. [06:32] wgrant, ok, thanks for the help and for testing it. I've no idea why the source packages are different and which difference causes the non-expansion, so I'll continue investigating [06:35] oh, it's because the .install file is not executable in the non-expanding source package :/ [06:40] I wonder what creates the .diff.gz file, it seems the +x flag is lost there [06:41] dpm: dpkg-buildpackage [06:42] dpm: If you want the +x preserved, consider switching to source format 3.0 [06:43] thanks StevenK. Oh, would that fix the issue, then? (there is no particular reason why we're using source format 1.0, so happy to switch to 3.0) [06:44] dpm: Because source format 3.0 generates a diff.tar.gz, not a diff.gz [06:45] StevenK, any other caveats to bear in mind when switching to 3.0, or shall I just update debian/source from 1.0 to 3.0? [06:49] dpm: https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 [06:50] thanks StevenK! === chandan_kumar is now known as chandankumar === chrisccoulson_ is now known as chrisccoulson === wallyworld is now known as Guest27426 [14:36] wgrant: ping [14:36] I'm slightly concerned about " kfilemetadata_4.13.0-0ubuntu1build1.dsc: Version older than that in the archive. 4:4.13.0-0ubuntu1build1 <= 4:4.13.2-0ubuntu1" [14:36] I didn't upload this [14:39] shadeslayer: Missing epoch [14:40] ScottK: that's all fine, but I didn't upload it [14:40] My *guess* is that Robert Ancell wanted to rebuild it against new libav [14:41] just not sure why I got an email [14:42] That is a bit strange. [15:21] shadeslayer: You're in the Maintainer field. [15:21] ah, hm, you mean Uploaders? [15:22] No, I meant what I said :) [15:22] Version: 4:4.13.0-0ubuntu1 [15:22] Maintainer: Rohan Garg [15:22] Newer versions have you in Uploaders instead, yes [15:22] ah, so it keeps track of old versions too? [15:22] Look at the uploaded version [15:22] ahhhhhh [15:22] cjwatson: thanks, makes sense now [15:22] 4:4.13.0-0ubuntu1build1 was I'm sure a no-change rebuild of 4:4.13.0-0ubuntu1, which had you in Maintainer [15:22] yep [15:57] good afternoon [15:59] is there a way to download and archive of a code branch from launchpad without having a member create one to provide it as a download on launchpad? [15:59] like you can on github e.g. [15:59] and to prevent having to retrieve it with bzr [16:06] never mind, it was hidden in the page of a specific revision === Nafallo_ is now known as Nafallo