[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: v3c + treedb + meta-treedb + v3c-dcom + v3c-qt + v3c-qt-examples



On 19/12/11 12:37, Etienne Millon wrote:
Hello Philip,

* Philip Ashmore<contact@philipashmore.com>  [111219 13:30]:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/v/v3c/v3c_2.5.0-01-1.dsc

404.
Darn.
When I uploaded the packages to mentors I (wrongly) guessed at the pattern
of dsc urls. I'm still seeing v3c-2.4.0-01 on mentors even though I uploaded v3c-2.5.0-01.
I forgot to change the meta-treedb's version from 1.3.0-03 to 1.4.0-01.
This affects v3c-dcom-0.5.0-01 which I tried to dcut. Now I can't re-upload it. Plus from it seems there's a problem with my debsign'ing of the finished packages.
Debian FTP Masters is saying

 GnuPG signature check failed on dcut._contact_philipashmore_com_.1324297336.11738.commands
 gpg: Signature made Mon Dec 19 12:22:16 2011 UTC using RSA key ID 855B1CA8
 gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
 (Exit status 2)
 /dcut._contact_philipashmore_com_.1324297336.11738.commands has bad PGP/GnuPG signature!
 Removing /dcut._contact_philipashmore_com_.1324297336.11738.commands

 Greetings,

 	Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)

Further,  4096R/855B1CA8 is my public gpg key and it's in mentors.
I don't understand how it can have a bad signature.

Next, when I found I couldn't dcut v3c-dcom files, I deleted the project with the mentors
web page so I could re-upload it, but no joy - it won't let me.

Is there a reason for this version number ? Usually, it's
<upstream version>-<debian revision>, so something like 2.5.0-1.

I used pbuilder to build them and the lintian checks issue only warnings.
Like I said, I lintian checked them all and got only warnings - you're seeing old versions.

Please fix them. If you need help for some of them, feel free to ask
on this thread. According to http://mentors.debian.net/package/v3c,
there are also errors (make sure to run lintian on the .changes files
to see all of them).
Regards,
Philip Ashmore


Reply to: