[Debian-med-packaging] Inconsistencies in pristine-tar of several packages

[rf at q-leap.de]

>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Tille <andreas at an3as.eu> writes:

Hi Andreas,

    >> $ cat bambamc_0.0.49.orig.tar.gz.id
    >> 42e2174057f8272780c3d112fb6933d1df9dde12 $ git checkout
    >> 42e2174057f8272780c3d112fb6933d1df9dde12 fatal: Cannot switch
    >> branch to a non-commit.

    Andreas> I can confirm this.

    >> - What happened to the git repo that the commit id referenced in
    >> bambamc_0.0.49.orig.tar.gz.id got lost?

    Andreas> I have no idea as well.  I'm just blindly following our
    Andreas> team policy document git hints and doing

    Andreas>    git import-orig --pristine-tar <tarball>

    Andreas> expecting it to work nicely (and never observed a problem
    Andreas> in the described workflow).

I just tested with "git import-orig --pristine-tar bambamc_0.0.50.tar.gz"
after which the id in bambamc_0.0.50.orig.tar.gz.id is correct and
corresponds to the commit of the upstream import. So git-buildpackage is
doing the right thing but something fishy must have been going on with
the repos after importing the upstream source which lead to the loss of
some commits. Anybody done some history rewriting?

    >> - Shouldn't we fix bambamc_0.0.49.orig.tar.gz.id to contain the
    >>   correct
    >> commit $(git show-ref --tags -s upstream/0.0.49)

    Andreas> Well, I'm fine with anything that is fixing a potential
    Andreas> issue (even if I can not really see in what situation this
    Andreas> could cause a problem).
 
OK, so if you don't mind, I will fix bambamc_0.0.49.orig.tar.gz.id (+
the other affected packages) and commit to alioth.

On another note. Shall I commit an update to the new bambamc upstream
version as well? When I do a backport, I usually like to do it for the
most recent version, unless there are reasons speaking against it.

    >> In my opinion <pkg>_<upstream_version>.orig.tar.gz.id should hold
    >> a valid git sha1 corresponding to the commit where the
    >> corresponding upstream source was imported. Only that way, the
    >> correspondence between the imported upstream source and the tar
    >> generated by pristine-tar checkout can be unambiguously
    >> established. Of course, you might argue that building the source
    >> package will fail if its not so, but I wouldn't consider that
    >> clean development ...

    Andreas> I'm fine with any enhancement that might make things
    Andreas> cleaner.  However, we should also document in our policy
    Andreas> document what to do and how to prevent this issue in the
    Andreas> future.
 
I'm thinking about how to add checks for such kind of things. Here at
Q-Leap, we notice it automatically when using our package create scripts.

Roland

-------
http://www.q-leap.com / http://qlustar.com