[SCM] supercollider/master: Convert upstream's post-hoc 3.5.4 tweak into a patch

[Felipe Sateler]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Dan S <danstowell+debmm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2012/8/17 Felipe Sateler <fsateler at debian.org>:
> > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Dan S <danstowell+debmm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 2012/8/17 Felipe Sateler <fsateler at debian.org>:
> >>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Dan S <danstowell+debmm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> 2012/8/15 Felipe Sateler <fsateler at debian.org>:
> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:38 AM,
> >>>>> <danstowell-guest at users.alioth.debian.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
> >>>>>> commit 3c1278c9f79054a1d80ec96fbcb6e44946a771cb
> >>>>>> Author: Dan Stowell <danstowell at users.sourceforge.net>
> >>>>>> Date:   Mon Aug 13 14:14:53 2012 +0100
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     Convert upstream's post-hoc 3.5.4 tweak into a patch
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But the new upstream tarball has been imported! This means that there
> >>>>> are non-debian/ changes between upstream and debian branch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I presume you did this because of some interaction between
> >>>>> git-buildpackage and pristine-tar. Can you explain?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes: I did it because debuild bailed out on detecting source changes
> >>>> between 3.5.4~repack and 3.5.4~repack-1 (or suchlike). I'm sorry that
> >>>> the git history is messy; upstream changed their mind about 3.5.4
> >>>> after I'd pushed the first 3.5.4 import, which meant there was nothing
> >>>> I could do to write it out of history. It may have been a bad choice
> >>>> to import the second tarball, but on the other hand that's the only
> >>>> way to make the recorded md5sum match against what's on upstream's
> >>>> servers. :/
> >>>
> >>> I think the problem is that it was imported with the same name as the
> >>> older one.
> >>
> >> Where do you see it being imported with the same name?
> >>
> >> I don't see that. The upstream tags, the content of the pristine-tar
> >> branch, the log, seem to me to show one import of ~repack and one
> >> import of ~repack-2.
> >
> > Sorry, I confused myself. What is likely to be the problem is that the
> > changelog has version 1:3.5.4~repack-2. That means (for all debian
> > tools) that this is upstream version 1:3.5.4~repack, debian revision
> > number 2. It should be 1:3.5.4~repack-2-2 for it to pickup the -2 in
> > the upstream version.
>
> OK. Two attached patches reflect my local changes, which seem to build
> with the right tarball etc. I should push?

Yes, please.

I just realized we were talking via private mail. Replying to the list
this time.


--

Saludos,
Felipe Sateler