On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 01:39:29AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 09/05/10 at 01:08 +0200, Tobias Grimm wrote: > > PS: > > > > I've just checked the packages in the ruby-pkg-extras repository and found > > at least 2 packages where it seems, that the maintainer used > > svn-buildpackage 0.8.0 and tagged a wrong revision: > > > > May be this gives my point of view, that the tagging behaviour with > > "-rBASE" is a problem, a little bit more weight :-) > > > > $ export tags=svn+alioth://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-ruby-extras/tags > > > > $ svn cat $tags/libbarby-ruby/0.3.2-1/debian/changelog | head -n1 > > libbarby-ruby (0.3-1) unstable; urgency=low > > # 0.3.2-1 != 0.3-1 > > > > $ svn cat $tags/libhaml-ruby/2.2.23-1/debian/changelog | head -n1 > > libhaml-ruby (2.2.22-1) unstable; urgency=low > > > > $ svn cat $tags/libhaml-ruby/2.2.24-1/debian/changelog | head -n1 > > libhaml-ruby (2.2.23-1) unstable; urgency=low > > > > There might be more packages with wrong tags, but it's hard to find them. > > Yeah, I totally concur. This behaviour is super-annoying. You are > changing the semantics of things that have been working for a long time.
Changed. I dropped -rBASE, i.e. svn-bp will now copy the current dir to tags/version without any information about the revision. Neil, do we want to upload soon to avoid more problems in various svn repos? Hauke -- .''`. Jan Hauke Rahm <j...@debian.org> www.jhr-online.de : :' : Debian Developer www.debian.org `. `'` Member of the Linux Foundation www.linux.com `- Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe www.fsfe.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
