AUR web interface

Tasklist

FS#16265 - [vim-auctex] tarball has future timestamp

Attached to Project: AUR web interface
Opened by Florian Friesdorf (chaoflow) - Saturday, 19 September 2009, 16:28 GMT
Last edited by Loui Chang (louipc) - Monday, 21 September 2009, 15:17 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Backend
Status Closed
Assigned To Loui Chang (louipc)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version 1.5.6.2
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

I adopted vim-auctex but cannot get a new tarball established in AUR, as 2.2.1-1 has a timestamp in the future. I can upload alright but the new tarball is not delivered.

Please delete the malicious tarball 2.2.1-1.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Loui Chang (louipc)
Monday, 21 September 2009, 15:17 GMT
Reason for closing:  Not a bug
Additional comments about closing:  Looks like an issue with yaourt.
Continue discussion on yaourt's AUR page.
Comment by Eric Belanger (Snowman) - Saturday, 19 September 2009, 18:33 GMT
The timestamp is 2009-09-19 14:22
Try to upload the new tarball tomorrow. It should then work.
Comment by Florian Friesdorf (chaoflow) - Saturday, 19 September 2009, 18:51 GMT
That's most probably the tarball I uploaded.

But when installing I get:

% yaourt -S vim-auctex
==> Resuming previous build

==> Downloading vim-auctex PKGBUILD from AUR...
tar: Record size = 10 blocks
tar: vim-auctex/vimdoc.install: time stamp 2010-11-12 01:09:29 is 36134349.016339961 s in the future
tar: vim-auctex/PKGBUILD: time stamp 2010-11-12 01:10:30 is 36134410.015586793 s in the future
tar: vim-auctex/license.txt: time stamp 2010-11-12 01:09:29 is 36134349.013794107 s in the future
Comment by Eric Belanger (Snowman) - Saturday, 19 September 2009, 19:16 GMT
I don't have enough privilege to delete the tarball.
Loui: I believe you can do that.
Comment by Loui Chang (louipc) - Saturday, 19 September 2009, 19:36 GMT
I can't find this file anywhere.
Comment by Loui Chang (louipc) - Saturday, 19 September 2009, 19:39 GMT
Ohh. Found it. The timestamps seem fine...
But I've deleted it anyways. Cheers.
Comment by Florian Friesdorf (chaoflow) - Saturday, 19 September 2009, 19:57 GMT
After you delete, the package was not available in AUR any more at all.

I uploaded 2.2.1-4 and now I am getting the same timestamp messages as posted before. Also I was wrong, it is not the tarball with a wrong timestamp but the files inside the tarball.
Comment by Eric Belanger (Snowman) - Saturday, 19 September 2009, 21:09 GMT
It looks like the problem happens when you create the tarball. Try running touch on the files before creating the tarball.
Comment by Florian Friesdorf (chaoflow) - Saturday, 19 September 2009, 21:19 GMT
I am convinced that it is not a problem of my tarball as the error message refers to files not contained in my tarball.
My tarball looks like this:

% tar tfz vim-auctex-2.2.1-4.src.tar.gz
vim-auctex/
vim-auctex/PKGBUILD

% tar xfz vim-auctex-2.2.1-4.src.tar.gz
% ls -l vim-auctex
total 4
-rwxr-xr-x 1 cfl cfl 593 2009-09-19 20:20 PKGBUILD*
Comment by Eric Belanger (Snowman) - Saturday, 19 September 2009, 21:29 GMT
Probably a yaourt bug then. Maybe it's using an old tarball. The tarball on AUR ( http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/vim-auctex/vim-auctex.tar.gz ) doesn't contain these files either.
Comment by Loui Chang (louipc) - Sunday, 20 September 2009, 06:02 GMT
Well if you ask me there's probably something wrong with your system
if you're creating files from 1970.

[loui@sigurd vim-auctex]$ tar tvf vim-auctex.tar.gz
tar: Record size = 6 blocks
drwxr-xr-x 33/33 0 1969-12-31 23:41 vim-auctex
-rwxr-xr-x 33/33 593 1970-01-01 04:14 vim-auctex/PKGBUILD

Anyways, that's not the issue here.
Clear your cache.
Comment by Florian Friesdorf (chaoflow) - Monday, 21 September 2009, 15:14 GMT
  • Field changed: Percent Complete (100% → 0%)
it was a caching problem - the tarball with future timestamp was not replaced.

However, the 1970 date and uid/gid 33/33 is not from me, I am uploading with correct date and uid/gid 1000/1000. Is this a problem in the server or normal behaviour?
Comment by Loui Chang (louipc) - Monday, 21 September 2009, 15:16 GMT
Hmm looks like it's a server issue.
Thanks for the notice.

Loading...