Re: wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1_source.changes REJECTED
Hi Nicholas,
On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 3:50 PM Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Vincent Cheng <vcheng@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Hi Micha,
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 10:52 PM Micha Lenk <micha@debian.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Vincent,
> >>
> >> I have no clue about why these rejects happened and consider them unexpected as well. I'd appreciate a dak expert to comment here.
> >>
> >> Would you mind uploading the package somewhere else so that there is some sample input data for use by a debug install of dak available?
> >
> > Sure thing, I've uploaded the source package to
> > https://people.debian.org/~vcheng/wesnoth/ for your inspection. Thanks
> > for taking a look at this!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vincent
>
> It looks to me like your changes file
> (https://people.debian.org/~vcheng/wesnoth/wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1_source.changes)
> is bad because buildinfo is missing. Here's the changes file when I
> build your backport (from git).
>
> --
> Format: 1.8
> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:07:09 -0800
> Source: wesnoth-1.18
> Architecture: source
> Version: 1:1.18.3-1~bpo12+1
> Distribution: bookworm-backports
> Urgency: medium
> Maintainer: Debian Games Team <pkg-games-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
> Changed-By: Vincent Cheng <vcheng@debian.org>
> Changes:
> wesnoth-1.18 (1:1.18.3-1~bpo12+1) bookworm-backports; urgency=medium
> .
> * Rebuild for bookworm-backports.
> .
> wesnoth-1.18 (1:1.18.3-1) unstable; urgency=medium
> .
> * New upstream stable release.
> Checksums-Sha1:
> bee262e1e20163ae0a902c8290ad71e8a9b29080 3429 wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1.dsc
> e8eb3d2a032181b8a779bf25d90b27ed26196bc0 179752 wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1.debian.tar.xz
> a9cc0428fa52849476fb5527b5a5a73cb70ddb06 23833 wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1_amd64.buildinfo
> Checksums-Sha256:
> c0cc8d043726ffc769bb945e624a85b68a82d30903329320266c5792771de065 3429 wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1.dsc
> 6c484a20c41f5e3eb089197e54c0933278165bc951f4f239407dcac15d4b0b1d 179752 wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1.debian.tar.xz
> 9f3277f5c544da96b73e0dcabf6485c9218c2ce830243b5b7e21ade20cb8d7e6 23833 wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1_amd64.buildinfo
> Files:
> 8e0de33443e44a083713805fed64bc0a 3429 games optional wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1.dsc
> 38193ba804def394445c3273d378ac12 179752 games optional wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1.debian.tar.xz
> ce57123b91e535d9cf0adc116963b1d4 23833 games optional wesnoth-1.18_1.18.3-1~bpo12+1_amd64.buildinfo
>
> --
>
> I can't remember if buildinfo is a formal requirement, but given how
> many packages I've recently seen uploaded without having been installed
> to the uploader's development system, I'm in favour of enforcing that an
> uploader successfully built a package on their development system. The
> buildinfo is part of the proof the developer did this.
1) It's a source only upload, why does buildinfo matter here / what
useful information does a source-only buildinfo convey about the
upload?
2) A previous source-only upload I made for wesnoth-1.18 also excluded
the buildinfo file and was successfully accepted into backports.
Regards,
Vincent
Reply to: