| studiobot | <teward001> @Eickmeyer is this a gitbuildpackage driven repository? | 00:25 |
|---|---|---|
| studiobot | <teward001> because you're missing a LOT of things to recreate without the orig tarball | 00:25 |
| studiobot | <teward001> i.e. it's not included in the repo or package | 00:25 |
| studiobot | <teward001> also | 00:25 |
| studiobot | <teward001> remind me if this is an SRU or not? Because your 0.8.x tarball isn't available | 00:26 |
| studiobot | <teward001> and i may have to manually import it | 00:26 |
| studiobot | <teward001> which is pain | 00:26 |
| Eickmeyer | Not an SRU. | 00:27 |
| Eickmeyer | And... gitbuildpackage? Shouldn't be, I don't use gitbuildpackage. | 00:27 |
| Eickmeyer | It has a git submodule. | 00:27 |
| Eickmeyer | The original tarball should be in pristine-tar. | 00:28 |
| Eickmeyer | @teward001 ^ | 00:28 |
| Eickmeyer | Actually.... | 00:29 |
| Eickmeyer | It doesn't have a git submodule. I'm thinking of a different package. | 00:29 |
| studiobot | <teward001> well | 00:30 |
| studiobot | <teward001> you need to tell me where the original tarballs are then | 00:30 |
| studiobot | <teward001> because this has a uscan that points at upstream git | 00:30 |
| studiobot | <teward001> and says there's a 1.0.0-alpha1 or 0.8.2 | 00:30 |
| studiobot | <teward001> also | 00:30 |
| studiobot | <teward001> your patch doesn't seem to have anything in it 😐 | 00:30 |
| studiobot | <teward001> somehow | 00:31 |
| studiobot | <teward001> maybe it's a bad clone | 00:31 |
| Eickmeyer | Let me see... | 00:31 |
| studiobot | <teward001> @Eickmeyer also the branch layout suggests its a gbp or similar - https://git.launchpad.net/raysession?h=master | 00:31 |
| Eickmeyer | teward: To get the original tarball: "pristine-tar checkout raysession_0.8.1.orig.tar.gz" That's standard procedure. | 00:33 |
| studiobot | <teward001> that's a gbp call | 00:34 |
| Eickmeyer | @teward001: That's the way I was taught how to do this. | 00:34 |
| studiobot | <teward001> and gbp buildpackage would do that, and it's complaining about 'bad checksum' | 00:34 |
| studiobot | <teward001> @Eickmeyer then the package is a gbp package | 00:34 |
| studiobot | <teward001> just saying | 00:34 |
| Eickmeyer | Launchpad didn't complain. | 00:34 |
| studiobot | <teward001> Launchpad is stupid 😜 | 00:34 |
| Eickmeyer | Did you pull the upstream branch too? | 00:36 |
| studiobot | <teward001> yep | 00:37 |
| studiobot | <teward001> xdelta3: target window checksum mismatch: XD3_INVALID_INPUT | 00:37 |
| Eickmeyer | That's completely bizarre. Launchpad built the package with zero issues. | 00:37 |
| Eickmeyer | And, launchpad is the standard we're going by. | 00:38 |
| Eickmeyer | Also, my patch isn't empty, so something must be wrong on your end. | 00:39 |
| studiobot | <teward001> where did you get the original tarball from? | 00:39 |
| studiobot | <teward001> the one included in the package here | 00:40 |
| studiobot | <teward001> because i need to do a diff here | 00:40 |
| Eickmeyer | https://github.com/Houston4444/raysession | 00:40 |
| studiobot | <teward001> tar.gz there you mean | 00:40 |
| studiobot | <teward001> for 0.8.1 | 00:40 |
| studiobot | <teward001> ? | 00:40 |
| Eickmeyer | Yes. | 00:40 |
| Eickmeyer | Though, now that 0.8.2 is out, I should update to that. I didn't expect him to release a bugfix so quickly. | 00:41 |
| studiobot | <teward001> what version of tar do you have on your system? `tar --version` you're using with your imports. | 00:41 |
| Eickmeyer | I'd have to check, I'm not on that system right now, nor can I easily check. It's whatever is included in eoan. | 00:42 |
| studiobot | <teward001> ah this explains the discrepancy | 00:42 |
| studiobot | <teward001> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=897653 is what i'm running into | 00:42 |
| ubottu | Debian bug 897653 in tar "tar 1.30 breaks pristine-tar" [Grave,Fixed] | 00:42 |
| studiobot | <teward001> 1.30+ breaks older tar imports :P | 00:42 |
| Eickmeyer | Oh, fml. | 00:42 |
| studiobot | <teward001> Launchpad's probably patched | 00:43 |
| studiobot | <teward001> but Ubuntu generally might not be for older envs. | 00:43 |
| Eickmeyer | Likely. | 00:43 |
| studiobot | <teward001> give me 1 minute | 00:43 |
| studiobot | <teward001> *does evil and backports things* | 00:43 |
| Eickmeyer | LOL | 00:43 |
| studiobot | <teward001> thank you backportpackage tool | 00:44 |
| studiobot | <teward001> ... and PPAs. | 00:45 |
| studiobot | <Eickmeyer> @teward001 Any luck? | 01:28 |
| studiobot | <teward001> gotta install the backport lol | 01:37 |
| studiobot | <teward001> patience | 01:37 |
| studiobot | <Eickmeyer> No worries. | 01:46 |
| studiobot | <teward001> um.... | 01:50 |
| studiobot | <teward001> small problem | 01:50 |
| studiobot | <teward001> the 'file' being altered? | 01:50 |
| studiobot | <teward001> doesn't exist | 01:50 |
| studiobot | <teward001> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/jYS8QC7Z5R/ | 01:50 |
| studiobot | <teward001> so i'm not sure HOW this passed on LP | 01:51 |
| studiobot | <teward001> hmmmm | 01:52 |
| studiobot | <teward001> @Eickmeyer I'm going to need a second set of eyes, I'll ask infinity, rbasak, or someone else on the release team to take a look | 01:55 |
| studiobot | <teward001> it's possible your patch is not compliant or doable | 01:55 |
| studiobot | <teward001> at least, based on debuild's output | 01:55 |
| studiobot | <Eickmeyer> Ok, I'll take a look. | 01:55 |
| studiobot | <teward001> fails in sbuild and in pdebuild | 01:55 |
| studiobot | <teward001> and there's no version release with the link patch i think | 01:56 |
| studiobot | <teward001> so the hard link is 'stuck' I think | 01:56 |
| studiobot | <Eickmeyer> Which patch? | 01:58 |
| studiobot | <Eickmeyer> The link patch? | 01:58 |
| studiobot | <Eickmeyer> Nm, that's what you said. | 01:58 |
| studiobot | <Eickmeyer> That is completely weird. It shouldn't have even built for me if that's the case. | 01:58 |
| studiobot | <Eickmeyer> Yet, I got a build from debuild -S and it uploaded and built just fine in my PPA. | 01:59 |
| studiobot | <Eickmeyer> I think I see the problem. | 02:00 |
| studiobot | <teward001> well i git cloned and then used it locally. I'll do more tests | 02:03 |
| studiobot | <Eickmeyer> Well, it might be a path issue. | 02:04 |
| studiobot | <teward001> possibly | 02:04 |
| studiobot | <teward001> but i'mma test a Focal env just in case | 02:04 |
| studiobot | <teward001> see if debuild gives me the same warns | 02:04 |
| studiobot | <Eickmeyer> Ok. I just pushed a change to my patch, give that a shot if all else fails. | 02:07 |
| studiobot | <Eickmeyer> I noticed a discrepency between the paths in the other patch and this one. | 02:08 |
| studiobot | <teward001> nope still fails | 02:09 |
| studiobot | <teward001> from a git clone | 02:09 |
| studiobot | <teward001> it fails because the symlink is bad and isn't cloned down it seems | 02:09 |
| studiobot | <teward001> so i'll have to do this old school :? | 02:09 |
| studiobot | <teward001> nope *still* fails | 02:10 |
| studiobot | <teward001> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/ZydhwhC5d4/ | 02:10 |
| studiobot | <Eickmeyer> *sigh* | 02:11 |
| studiobot | <Eickmeyer> Might be that upstream has to fix the issue first. | 02:11 |
| studiobot | <teward001> So, not just me. https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/87c7YDmN4T/ | 02:13 |
| studiobot | <teward001> yeah I think upstream has to | 02:13 |
| studiobot | <teward001> i'll talk to infinity and others tomorrow in #ubuntu-devel on IRC to ask them if they can provide a solution to fix the unsafe symlink issue | 02:13 |
| studiobot | <Eickmeyer> OK | 02:14 |
| studiobot | <teward001> it might be possible to just hand-wave 0.8.1 without the symlink patch in because we can't patch it | 02:15 |
| studiobot | <teward001> but that's a decision above me | 02:15 |
| studiobot | <Eickmeyer> Ok, keep me posted. | 02:23 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!