Hi Santiago, On Thu, 2020-03-05 at 09:41 +0100, Santiago R.R. wrote: > > Hi Ritesh, > > When trying to upload I realized the format of the package is that of > a > native package, but the version has a revision at the same time. > Which I > think it is unusual. > I don't understand how the package is built (at least using gbp). > Could > you please tell me how to do you build the package? And even, fell > free > to upload it yourself, to avoid duplicating work.
For Buster, I need to add debian/gbp.conf but meanwhile you can build it like this: rrs@priyasi:~/rrs-home/Community/Packaging/uml/user-mode-linux (buster)$ pdebuild --debbuildopts "-i.git -I.git -S" dpkg-checkbuilddeps: error: Unmet build dependencies: linux-source-4.19 docbook-to-man libvdeplug2-dev libpcap-dev libssl-dev W: Unmet build-dependency in source dpkg-query: no packages found matching linux-source-4.19 (cd linux-source-4.19 && QUILT_PATCHES=/home/rrs/NoBackup/Community/Packaging/uml/user-mode-linux/debian/patches quilt pop -a || /bin/true) /bin/sh: 1: cd: can't cd to linux-source-4.19 rm -rf patch-stamp linux-source-4.19/.pc dh_testdir dh_testroot rm -f unpack-stamp build-stamp configure-stamp rm -rf linux-source-4.19 linux.uml.1 /home/rrs/NoBackup/Community/Packaging/uml/user-mode-linux/debian/uml-modules changelog dh_clean dpkg-source: warning: no source format specified in debian/source/format, see dpkg-source(1) dpkg-source: warning: source directory 'user-mode-linux' is not <sourcepackage>-<upstreamversion> 'user-mode-linux-4.19-1um' dpkg-source: info: using source format '1.0' dpkg-source: info: building user-mode-linux in user-mode-linux_4.19-1um-1+deb10u1.tar.gz dpkg-source: info: building user-mode-linux in user-mode-linux_4.19-1um-1+deb10u1.dsc I: Generating source changes file for original dsc dpkg-genchanges: info: including full source code in upload ERROR: ld.so: object 'libeatmydata.so' from LD_PRELOAD cannot be preloaded (cannot open shared object file): ignored. I: pbuilder: network access will be disabled during build I: Current time: Thu Mar 5 18:37:58 IST 2020 I: pbuilder-time-stamp: 1583413678 I: Building the build Environment On the other hand, for the master branch it already has debian/gbp.conf . So a simple gbp buildpackage will work there. rrs@priyasi:~/rrs-home/Community/Packaging/uml/user-mode-linux (master)$ gbp buildpackage -S gbp:info: Performing the build dpkg-checkbuilddeps: error: Unmet build dependencies: linux-source-5.4 docbook-to-man libvdeplug2-dev libpcap-dev libssl-dev gcc-multilib W: Unmet build-dependency in source dpkg-query: no packages found matching linux-source-5.4 (cd linux-source-5.4 && QUILT_PATCHES=/home/rrs/NoBackup/Community/Packaging/uml/user-mode-linux/debian/patches quilt pop -a || /bin/true) /bin/sh: 1: cd: can't cd to linux-source-5.4 rm -rf patch-stamp linux-source-5.4/.pc dh_testdir dh_testroot rm -f unpack-stamp build-stamp configure-stamp rm -rf linux-source-5.4 linux.uml.1 /home/rrs/NoBackup/Community/Packaging/uml/user-mode-linux/debian/uml-modules changelog dh_clean dpkg-source: warning: no source format specified in debian/source/format, see dpkg-source(1) dpkg-source: warning: source directory 'user-mode-linux' is not <sourcepackage>-<upstreamversion> 'user-mode-linux-5.4-1um' dpkg-source: info: using source format '1.0' dpkg-source: info: building user-mode-linux in user-mode-linux_5.4-1um-2.tar.gz dpkg-source: info: building user-mode-linux in user-mode-linux_5.4-1um-2.dsc I: Generating source changes file for original dsc dpkg-genchanges: info: including full source code in upload ERROR: ld.so: object 'libeatmydata.so' from LD_PRELOAD cannot be preloaded (cannot open shared object file): ignored. [sudo] password for rrs: I: pbuilder: network access will be disabled during build I: Current time: Thu Mar 5 18:35:49 IST 2020 I: pbuilder-time-stamp: 1583413549 I: Building the build Environment About the revision format, I agree that it is a confusing one. I have no context why Mattia Dongli (previous UML maintainer, now retired) chose that format, or the maintainer before him. So far I had been carrying it forward as is. But I guess, some day, I'd want to get away from it. My wild guess is is that it must have been done so for ABI checks; something that I never cared for since I took up the maintenance. -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
