Launchpad itself

ppa rejected after fixing depends

Asked by Ralph Doncaster

My first ppa upload was accepted but failed to build because I didn't list all the depenedencies in the control file.
 * Source Package: ethminer-genoil
 * Version: 1.0.7-0ubuntu1
 * Architecture: amd64
 * Archive: ~nerdralph/ubuntu/ethminer
 * Component: main
 * State: Failed to build
 * Build Log: https://launchpad.net/~nerdralph/+archive/ubuntu/ethminer/+build/9599584/+files/buildlog_ubuntu-trusty-amd64.ethminer-genoil_1.0.7-0ubuntu1_BUILDING.txt.gz
 * Builder: https://launchpad.net/builders/lgw01-19
 * Source: not available

I added several dependencies, ran "bzr builddeb -S", "dput -f [...]", and now it is being rejected without an attempt at building:

Rejected:
File ethminer-genoil_1.0.7-0ubuntu1.debian.tar.gz already exists in ethminer-genoil, but uploaded version has different contents. See more information about this error in https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/UploadErrors.
Files specified in DSC are broken or missing, skipping package unpack verification.

ethminer-genoil (1.0.7-0ubuntu1) trusty; urgency=low

  * Initial release

The UploadErrors page makes little sense to me as it seems to suggest I need to bump the version number when I change the source, but none of the source has changed, just debian/control.

How do I force a new build attempt now that I've added dependencies?

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
Launchpad itself Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
Colin Watson (cjwatson) said : 		#1

debian/control is part of the source package. Any change at all to any part of the source package requires a new version number.

You should use "dch" to add a new entry to the top of debian/changelog with version 1.0.7-0ubuntu2, build that source package, and upload that.

Revision history for this message
Ralph Doncaster (nerdralph) said : 		#2

Really? Thats a hack to workaround a bug in launchpad's ppa system.
Is there any plan to fix that? Launchpad should be an example of good
software practices.
On Apr 20, 2016 1:46 AM, "Colin Watson" <
<email address hidden>> wrote:

> Your question #291522 on Launchpad itself changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/291522
>
> Status: Open => Answered
>
> Colin Watson proposed the following answer:
> debian/control is part of the source package. Any change at all to any
> part of the source package requires a new version number.
>
> You should use "dch" to add a new entry to the top of debian/changelog
> with version 1.0.7-0ubuntu2, build that source package, and upload that.
>
> --
> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
> know that it is solved:
>
> https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/291522/+confirm?answer_id=0
>
> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
> following page to enter your feedback:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/291522
>
> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>

Revision history for this message
William Grant (wgrant) said : 		#3

It's not a hack, and it's not a bug. If you change the package, that is by definition a different version. Launchpad is just enforcing good practice.

Revision history for this message
Ralph Doncaster (nerdralph) said : 		#4

But there is no version available in the ppa since it didn't build. Saying
it is good practice does not make it so.
There is no benefit to keeping non-working source packages. I could be
missing something, but having developed software for 30 years, I doubt it.
On Apr 20, 2016 3:37 AM, "William Grant" <
<email address hidden>> wrote:

> Your question #291522 on Launchpad itself changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/291522
>
> Status: Open => Answered
>
> William Grant proposed the following answer:
> It's not a hack, and it's not a bug. If you change the package, that is
> by definition a different version. Launchpad is just enforcing good
> practice.
>
> --
> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
> know that it is solved:
>
> https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/291522/+confirm?answer_id=2
>
> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
> following page to enter your feedback:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/291522
>
> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>

Revision history for this message
William Grant (wgrant) said : 		#5

There are no binary pacakges available in the PPA, but the source package is. Your upload was rejected due to the conflicting source version.

Versions are cheap. Increment the version and move on; this behaviour is correct and will not change.

Revision history for this message
Ralph Doncaster (nerdralph) said : 		#6

Versions are cheap means it is a hack, but you justify it by saying it is
low overhead. And it proves your argument about it being good practice is
bullshit.
On Apr 20, 2016 3:47 AM, "William Grant" <
<email address hidden>> wrote:

> Your question #291522 on Launchpad itself changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/291522
>
> Status: Open => Answered
>
> William Grant proposed the following answer:
> There are no binary pacakges available in the PPA, but the source
> package is. Your upload was rejected due to the conflicting source
> version.
>
> Versions are cheap. Increment the version and move on; this behaviour is
> correct and will not change.
>
> --
> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
> know that it is solved:
>
> https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/291522/+confirm?answer_id=4
>
> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
> following page to enter your feedback:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/291522
>
> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>

Revision history for this message
William Grant (wgrant) said : 		#7

If you won't remain civil then there's nothing further to discuss.

Revision history for this message
Ralph Doncaster (nerdralph) said : 		#8

I did not engage in ad hominem attacks. I challenged you to defend your
position. Launchpad isn't very open when it lets people like you rule in
an arbitrary way, and dismiss suggestions that there are bugs in the way it
works without justification.

If things change I'll reconsider sharing the package on launchpad, but
until then I'll probably just publish a statically-linked binary tgz.
On Apr 20, 2016 3:57 AM, "William Grant" <
<email address hidden>> wrote:

Your question #291522 on Launchpad itself changed:
https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/291522

    Status: Open => Solved

William Grant changed the question status:
If you won't remain civil then there's nothing further to discuss.

--
You received this question notification because you asked the question.