A developer should be able to delete incorrect files

Asked by Jason Heeris

This concerns the PPA at: https://launchpad.net/~rabbitvcs/+archive/ppa

I recently uploaded an upstream tarball with my changes file that was not, in fact, the right one. I tried to upload the right one, but it wouldn't let me overwrite it. I requested deletion, so the package and tarball no longer appeared, but I still couldn't upload it (the automatic email said that the tarball still existed, despite being invisible). The suggestion I got on IRC was to start a new PPA... really? Can't I just delete a bad file?

At this point I could not fall back on simply downloading the "bad" tarball and using it for subsequent uploads, because I had requested it for deletion.

It's now seven hours later, and when I try to upload the correct files, I get:

----
Rejected:
The source rabbitvcs - 0.12.1-1~hardy is already accepted in ubuntu/hardy and you cannot upload the same version within the same distribution. You have to modify the source version and re-upload.
----

Well, there's no package like that in the PPA or in Ubuntu hardy.

This seems incredibly unforgiving... I'm not going to rename the orig tarball and break the workings of the Debian build tools. I'd also rather not move our PPA. But I'm now stuck — I can't upload any new packages with that tarball, or even the same one.

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
Launchpad itself Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
Max Bowsher
Solved:
Last query:
Last reply:

This question was reopened

Revision history for this message
Vikram Dhillon (dhillon-v10) said :
#1

What you will have to do in the case of a PPA, is to remove the file
from your computer first, then record that in the changelog and do a
debuild -S that would build your ppa but this time removing that "bad"
file

--
Regards,
Vikram Dhillon

On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 23:52 +0000, Jason Heeris wrote:
> New question #92507 on Launchpad itself:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/92507
>
> This concerns the PPA at: https://launchpad.net/~rabbitvcs/+archive/ppa
>
> I recently uploaded an upstream tarball with my changes file that was not, in fact, the right one. I tried to upload the right one, but it wouldn't let me overwrite it. I requested deletion, so the package and tarball no longer appeared, but I still couldn't upload it (the automatic email said that the tarball still existed, despite being invisible). The suggestion I got on IRC was to start a new PPA... really? Can't I just delete a bad file?
>
> At this point I could not fall back on simply downloading the "bad" tarball and using it for subsequent uploads, because I had requested it for deletion.
>
> It's now seven hours later, and when I try to upload the correct files, I get:
>
> ----
> Rejected:
> The source rabbitvcs - 0.12.1-1~hardy is already accepted in ubuntu/hardy and you cannot upload the same version within the same distribution. You have to modify the source version and re-upload.
> ----
>
> Well, there's no package like that in the PPA or in Ubuntu hardy.
>
> This seems incredibly unforgiving... I'm not going to rename the orig tarball and break the workings of the Debian build tools. I'd also rather not move our PPA. But I'm now stuck — I can't upload any new packages with that tarball, or even the same one.
>

Revision history for this message
Jason Heeris (detly) said :
#2

I'll try the workaround when I can, but it seems really silly that I have to upload incorrect packages and bump versions because Launchpad lacks such an essential repository management "feature".

Revision history for this message
Max Bowsher (maxb) said :
#3

Vikram: You appear to be answering a totally different question to the one Jason asked. When giving advice, take a moment to ensure you give the correct advice.

Jason: A versioned filename within an APT archive - be it a PPA, or the Ubuntu or Debian primary archives - is supposed to be unique for all time. Launchpad enforces this. Sometimes this can be annoying - but compare this to how horrid it would be if version strings didn't actually identify versions.

Revision history for this message
Jason Heeris (detly) said :
#4

Max - I'm certainly not disputing that practice in general, but humans do make mistakes... it seems to me that there's no way to correct this one and remain consistent with the requirements of the Debian packaging tools. Please note that I'm not looking for an *easy* way to correct it, if abuse of the ability is a concern. Something involving someone else's discretion might be okay, but currently I am prevented from uploading the correct file because some invisible, inaccessible, incorrect file is blocking it.

Bumping the packaging version would be okay, but that doesn't involve changing the filename of the orig tarball. But I can't just bump the minor part of our upstream version for a packaging problem.

So what do I do?

Revision history for this message
Best Max Bowsher (maxb) said :
#5

The usual technique for this sort of scenario is to append an alphabetic suffix to the upstream version - e.g. yourproject_1.2.3actual.orig.tar.gz

Revision history for this message
Jason Heeris (detly) said :
#6

Presumably this requires an equivalent change in the packaging info (ie. changelog, etc, should have 0.12.1actual-1...)? Or is that not an issue?

Revision history for this message
Max Bowsher (maxb) said :
#7

Correct, it needs to be changed in the debian/changelog and anywhere else package versions are referred to.

Revision history for this message
Vikram Dhillon (dhillon-v10) said :
#8

@ Max Bowsher:

My apologies, I didn't read the questions carefully. Thank you very much
for correcting me :)

--
Regards,
Vikram Dhillon

On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 03:01 +0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Question #92507 on Launchpad itself changed:
> https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/92507
>
> Max Bowsher proposed the following answer:
> Vikram: You appear to be answering a totally different question to the
> one Jason asked. When giving advice, take a moment to ensure you give
> the correct advice.
>
>
> Jason: A versioned filename within an APT archive - be it a PPA, or the Ubuntu or Debian primary archives - is supposed to be unique for all time. Launchpad enforces this. Sometimes this can be annoying - but compare this to how horrid it would be if version strings didn't actually identify versions.
>

Revision history for this message
Jason Heeris (detly) said :
#9

Okay, I appended "+actual" to the version string and uploaded that.

I really think you should change the wording of the "Request Deletion" link, since it seems to have nothing to do with deletion, just "hiding" (or possibly, "deletion from index" or somesuch), and mention that the file is not, in fact, deleted.

Revision history for this message
Max Bowsher (maxb) said :
#10

Well..... it deletes it from the http view presented to apt-get. The only way in which it is kept is in the way that Launchpad keeps metadata and source packages for everything forever. But yes, some explanatory text under the delete button wouldn't go amiss. Perhaps you feel like filing a bug? https://bugs.launchpad.net/soyuz/+filebug

Revision history for this message
Jason Heeris (detly) said :
#11

I already have started a bug[1], I will add that comment to it.

Thanks for your help, too.

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/491165

Revision history for this message
Jason Heeris (detly) said :
#12

Thanks Max Bowsher, that solved my question.