 @Eickmeyer is this a gitbuildpackage driven repository?
 because you're missing a LOT of things to recreate without the orig tarball
 i.e. it's not included in the repo or package
 also
 remind me if this is an SRU or not?  Because your 0.8.x tarball isn't available
 and i may have to manually import it
 which is pain
[00:27] <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.
[00:28] <Eickmeyer> The original tarball should be in pristine-tar.
[00:28] <Eickmeyer> @teward001 ^
[00:29] <Eickmeyer> Actually....
[00:29] <Eickmeyer> It doesn't have a git submodule. I'm thinking of a different package.
 well
 you need to tell me where the original tarballs are then
 because this has a uscan that points at upstream git
 and says there's a 1.0.0-alpha1 or 0.8.2
 also
 your patch doesn't seem to have anything in it 😐
 somehow
 maybe it's a bad clone
[00:31] <Eickmeyer> Let me see...
 @Eickmeyer also the branch layout suggests its a gbp or similar - https://git.launchpad.net/raysession?h=master
[00:33] <Eickmeyer> teward: To get the original tarball: "pristine-tar checkout raysession_0.8.1.orig.tar.gz" That's standard procedure.
 that's a gbp call
[00:34] <Eickmeyer> @teward001: That's the way I was taught how to do this.
 and gbp buildpackage would do that, and it's complaining about 'bad checksum'
 @Eickmeyer then the package is a gbp package
 just saying
[00:34] <Eickmeyer> Launchpad didn't complain.
 Launchpad is stupid 😜
[00:36] <Eickmeyer> Did you pull the upstream branch too?
 yep
 xdelta3: target window checksum mismatch: XD3_INVALID_INPUT
[00:37] <Eickmeyer> That's completely bizarre. Launchpad built the package with zero issues.
[00:38] <Eickmeyer> And, launchpad is the standard we're going by.
[00:39] <Eickmeyer> Also, my patch isn't empty, so something must be wrong on your end.
 where did you get the original tarball from?
 the one included in the package here
 because i need to do a diff here
[00:40] <Eickmeyer> https://github.com/Houston4444/raysession
 tar.gz there you mean
 for 0.8.1
 ?
[00:40] <Eickmeyer> Yes.
[00:41] <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.
 what version of tar do you have on your system?  `tar --version` you're using with your imports.
[00:42] <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.
 ah this explains the discrepancy
 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=897653 is what i'm running into
 1.30+ breaks older tar imports :P
[00:42] <Eickmeyer> Oh, fml.
 Launchpad's probably patched
 but Ubuntu generally might not be for older envs.
[00:43] <Eickmeyer> Likely.
 give me 1 minute
 *does evil and backports things*
[00:43] <Eickmeyer> LOL
 thank you backportpackage tool
 ... and PPAs.
 @teward001 Any luck?
 gotta install the backport lol
 patience
 No worries.
 um....
 small problem
 the 'file' being altered?
 doesn't exist
 https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/jYS8QC7Z5R/
 so i'm not sure HOW this passed on LP
 hmmmm
 @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
 it's possible your patch is not compliant or doable
 at least, based on debuild's output
 Ok, I'll take a look.
 fails in sbuild and in pdebuild
 and there's no version release with the link patch i think
 so the hard link is 'stuck' I think
 Which patch?
 The link patch?
 Nm, that's what you said.
 That is completely weird. It shouldn't have even built for me if that's the case.
 Yet, I got a build from debuild -S and it uploaded and built just fine in my PPA.
 I think I see the problem.
 well i git cloned and then used it locally.  I'll do more tests
 Well, it might be a path issue.
 possibly
 but i'mma test a Focal env just in case
 see if debuild gives me the same warns
 Ok. I just pushed a change to my patch, give that a shot if all else fails.
 I noticed a discrepency between the paths in the other patch and this one.
 nope still fails
 from a git clone
 it fails because the symlink is bad and isn't cloned down it seems
 so i'll have to do this old school :?
 nope *still* fails
 https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/ZydhwhC5d4/
 *sigh*
 Might be that upstream has to fix the issue first.
 So, not just me.  https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/87c7YDmN4T/
 yeah I think upstream has to
 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
 OK
 it might be possible to just hand-wave 0.8.1 without the symlink patch in because we can't patch it
 but that's a decision above me
 Ok, keep me posted.