karstensragei keep trying to upload the signed CoC but its error'ing no public key02:18
karstensrage(7, 9, u'No public key')02:18
dholbachgood morning07:58
Rhondakarstensrage: And you have your public key in there?  Btw., #launchpad might be more appropriate for that question.08:21
alkisgHi, I want to ship a newer version of my package X, but I want the old postrm to be called with "remove" instead of "upgrade". Will "Conflicts: X (<< 10)" do that?11:13
Rhondaalkisg: According to the graph on https://wiki.debian.org/MaintainerScripts if the old postrm with remove fails, the new postrm is called with failed-upgrade.12:13
RhondaWould that help you?12:14
Rhondaerm, old postrm with upgrade fails*12:14
karstensrageRhonda, thanks, i figured it out, the key has subkeys and gpg was using the wrong subkey... some weirdly hidden feature allows you select the subkey only if you put a ! after the id14:27
karstensragei wonder if anyone at gpg has heard about the principle of least surprise14:29
Rhonda"anyone at gpg", you know it's literally a one-man show? :)14:37
ogra_didnt he hire someone last year ?14:38
RhondaI just met him two days ago btw.14:42
Rhondafosdem is nice sometimes. :)14:42
* ogra_ missed it again this year :(14:42
ogra_can't do both ... SCaLE and FOSDEM ...14:43
RhondaYou have to learn to scale better, then. :)14:44
karstensrageno Rhonda i did not know that14:44
karstensrageanyway it buried in the documentation i really should write a blog post about how useless documentation is14:44
karstensrageits buried14:44
RhondaI always stayed away from subkeys so far.  Never was able to wrap my head around understanding them so far.14:46
karstensrageyeah maybe a good idea14:47
alkisgRhonda: thank you, but the old prerm/postrm don't fail, they exist successfully... When I tried "Conflicts: X (<<10)", I got `(old-)prerm upgrade <new-version>`, while I'm looking for `(old-)prerm remove in-favor <new-version>`...15:44
alkisg"conflictor's-prerm remove in-favour package new-version"15:52
Rhondaalkisg: Why would you need to make it being called with remove which you can't work around through some snippets in the new preinst?16:03
RhondaOrder is: old->prerm upgrade, new->preinst upgrade, old->postrm upgrade, new->postinst configure16:04
alkisgRhonda: the old package was programmed by someone else and has some hacks, different per their own version, and I don't want to have to include all their hacks' history in my preinst code...16:05
alkisgRhonda: I'm reading this: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html#s-mscriptsinstact16:05
alkisg The prerm script may be called in the following ways:16:05
RhondaOnly for a release (or the releases that are supported to upgrade from)16:05
alkisgconflictor's-prerm remove in-favour package new-version16:05
RhondaDon't read the policy, looking at the graph is so much more sane.  :)16:06
alkisg...that's what I'm trying to reproduce by the appropriate conflict/breaks/replaces directives, but I can't16:06
alkisgThe graphs state that they don't cover the "conflicts" case16:06
RhondaSo, maybe the oldhacks in those scripts are obsolete by now anyway?  Aren't they version bound?16:07
alkisgAnd they link to another site, which also has graphs, but explains "conflicts" in a text-only section...16:07
alkisgI could call their own prerm script with "remove", if conflicts: can't call `prerm remove`, but that sounds hackish on my part... :/16:10
alkisgI.e. find it at /var/lib/dpkg/info...16:10
* alkisg ends up reading dpkg/src/unpack.c...16:23
alkisg"conflictor" is the older version, right?16:23
alkisgI got it working *if* I use a different package name... with conflicts+replaces16:43
alkisgThis then does call `prerm remove in-favour`16:43
alkisgChanging the package name back to the original changes the behaviour, it passes "update" instead of "remove", so no-go16:57
=== sgclark_sleeping is now known as sgclark
=== Acn0w- is now known as Acn0w
=== lionel_ is now known as lionel

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