Launchpad itself

File doit_0.25.0.orig.tar.xz already exists in my PPA (different size) then its Rejected by Launchpad

Asked by Pascal Mons

When trying to upload doit I get this error message from Launchpad (e-mail) "File doit_0.25.0.orig.tar.xz already exists in my PPA https://launchpad.net/~anton+/+archive/ubuntu/photo-video-apps (albeit with a different size due to another compression ...) ... but uploaded version has different contents" then it is Rejected by Launchpad. As well the extracted content should be the same but launchpad only verify the zipped file.

However, I do not have on my machine the first one uploaded to Launchpad, and I can't find it either in any Launchpad webpage ...
All I see is a failed build in my PPA for source doit in Precise, then trying to relaunch the build (to get the source published in my PPA again as I believe I deleted it 10 days ago) will end up with a red message "Build for superseded Source". --> No build possible. Although this source is the latest one for all Ubuntu versions ... Where does the "superseeded" comes from then ?

This is in contradiction with Packages you publish in your PPA will remain there until you remove them, they're superseded by another package that you upload or the version of Ubuntu against which they're built becomes obsolete. " from https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA

Google won't show anything for this file in Launchpad as well ...

How can I unlock this situation ? Apart from giving up in the xz format ...

Thanks for your insight.

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
Launchpad itself Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
William Grant
Solved:
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
Best William Grant (wgrant) said : 		#1

An orig.tar.* is what the name suggests: the original release tarball from the upstream project. So it cannot change unless upstream retroactively rereleases a release. How did you end up with two different files both named doit_0.25.0.orig.tar.xz?

Each name uniquely identifies a single file throughout the history of a PPA; if you change the content, you must make a corresponding change to the version in the filename. To save space, Launchpad deletes PPA files that haven't been published for more than around a week, so it's quite possible that LP no longer has a copy of the old tarball. But even files that have been deleted are remembered, so you can't bypass the rule by deleting things.

If you can't find a copy of the original doit_0.25.0.orig.tar.xz anywhere, you have no choice but to change the content and thus the version. In future, you should be using the actual upstream release artifact unless you have a very good reason to not -- recompressing to save 28KiB probably isn't worth the confusion.

In this case, however, you can still download your version of doit_0.25.0.orig.tar.xz by visiting https://launchpad.net/~anton+/+archive/ubuntu/photo-video-apps, hitting "View packages", switching "Published" to "Any status", searching for "doit", and expanding the sole entry. Grab it quickly, as it may well disappear in the next couple of days.

Revision history for this message
Pascal Mons (anton+) said : 		#2

Thank you for your answer.

Well, usually when an upload is successful I keep the debian and orig source on my computer and I use only the .tar.xz format. Here the difference is close to nothing however on some packages it could reach 50 % as compared to the developer / upstream source .tar.gz

Unfortunately, I learned that performing a .tar.xz compression does not always end up with the very same compressed size. In addition command line creation gets always a different size as the GUI from nautilus addon...

Launchpad only checks the hash for the compressed file.

Reading your explanation I was able to get back the deleted source (some 2 weeks ago) by selecting the "superseded" packages.

My "new" compression is (314,264 bytes) while the first uploaded version is (314,200 bytes).

Well, I amanged then to get the first uploaded .tar.xz

Thanks.

Revision history for this message
Pascal Mons (anton+) said : 		#3

Thanks William Grant, that solved my question.