< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 closed pull request #14558: rpc: Require solvability in importmulti if importing more than the scriptPubKey (master...importmulti-solvability) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14558
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 closed pull request #14021: Import key origin data through importmulti (master...import-multi-hd) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14021
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dongcarl opened pull request #14605: Return of the Banman (master...banman) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14605
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #11457: Introduce BanMan (master...move-bandb) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11457
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #13280: [qt] Removed "Pay only the required fee" checkbox (master...custom-fee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13280
< phwalkr> Hey. I'm trying to build a testnet transaction according to an example, and I am getting Error validating transaction: Rejected script for input 0 referencing . Can someone help me?
< phwalkr> This is the transaction I'm trying to broadcast https://0bin.net/paste/-3maB0rGk6fq3eE0#X7reA5XCqZYwzeu+YACcmEV7YXNAdkKFq3C6I2ci7XZ
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fridokus opened pull request #14606: Tests: Consistency changes in comments (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14606
< Sentineo> phwalkr: one of its inputs is already spent ...
< cu-olly20> /ⵑ\ AᎢTΝ: Thіs cһannеⅼ һas mоvеԁ tഠ irc.freᥱᥒoԁe.ᥒᥱt ﹟⧸ϳoіᥒ /!\
< wumpus> whuh
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #14608: qt: Remove the "Pay only required fee..." checkbox (master...20181030-remove-payonlyrequiredfee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14608
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sp4ke opened pull request #14609: Less confusing documentation for `torpassword` (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14609
< provoostenator> Gitian for v0.17.0.1 Windows is presenting me with "cp: cannot stat 'inputs/bitcoin-': No such file or directory"
< provoostenator> Same Bionic machine that I signed v0.17.0(rc*) with.
< hebasto> provoostenator: with gitian-build.py?
< provoostenator> hebasto yes: python3 gitian-build.py --detach-sign --no-commit -B sjors
< provoostenator> The non-signed builds (-b) work fine, but the signed builds (-s and -B) don't.
< hebasto> provoostenator: script expects 'inputs/bitcoin-0.17.0-win-unsigned.tar.gz', which is wrong.
< provoostenator> wumpus: did you use the old bash version by any chance? https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gitian.sigs/commit/484902bd74d4d80b91fe1d8b0ec8db622e9c66fc
< hebasto> provoostenator: I've modified two lines in the script on this purpose.
< hebasto> provoostenator: in lines 95 and 103 replace args.version with ""
< hebasto> err
< provoostenator> hebasto: thanks, can you make a PR for that? I'll ACK it if those changes work.
< hebasto> with 0.17.0
< hebasto> provoostenator: sure
< provoostenator> Though I think it's the unsigned version that's not named right.
< hebasto> yes
< provoostenator> So your version would be incompatible with wuppus' commit:
< provoostenator> Oh no nvm
< provoostenator> Oh no nvm, it's the file name: "bitcoin-0.17.0-win64-setup.exe"
< hebasto> ^
< achow101> provoostenator: there was a change to gitian-build.py that may not exist in
< achow101> provoostenator: the change was that the unsigned version that goes into gitian-builder/inputs would be versioned, instead of generically named
< achow101> that's probably what is causing your problem.
< provoostenator> achow101 I'm using gitian-build.py from the latest master
< provoostenator> It's versioned, but it ignored the 4th decimal: bitcoin-0.17.0-win-unsigned.tar.gz
< achow101> oh, i see.
< provoostenator> I would say that's the bug; no reason to leave out the 4th digit for an internal file name.
< provoostenator> (though I'm happy to ignore the bug for this release and just stick to 0.17.0-win, otherwise everyone would have to rebuild.
< achow101> that seems like a bug in gitian itself though, not with the build script. the resulting unsigned.tar.gz file is versioned incorrectly
< achow101> unless the version number wasn't bumped again
< achow101> so gitian is making binaries with the version number 0.17.0? or is it making them wiht except for the win unsigned tar?
< provoostenator> macOS has the same naming issue
< provoostenator> Linux binaries have 3 digits: bitcoin-0.17.0-arm-linux-gnueabihf.tar.gz
< achow101> provoostenator: I see the problem now, investigating a fix
< achow101> (something to do with 'make dist')
< provoostenator> achow101: great, I'm too jetlagged to make sense of this, but happy to test your fix :-)
< provoostenator> Also at some point we should rename osx to macos in the file name
< wumpus> provoostenator: could be, my base image is pretty old at this point
< wumpus> is this a regression for it looked to me that there were plenty of succesful builders
< hebasto> wumpus: yes, it's a regression for
< achow101> wumpus: hebasto: it isn't really a regression
< achow101> it has been broken for a while I think. we see the same thing happend with
< achow101> all that has changed is that the build script does versioning, which is what is causing problems. the versioning is slightly broken in make or configure
< achow101> provoostenator: can you try https://github.com/achow101/bitcoin/tree/fix-4-version-gitian ? I think that should fix this problem
< Arvidt> When doing tar -xzf bitcoin- it extracts to the folder bitcoin-0.17.0/ . I would suggest that it extracts to the folder bitcoin- because I have a symlink "current" to the newest version, and now, my old binary tree of 0.17.0 got simply overwritten with the version, while I was still running 0.17.0 with that binary tree :-( But it looks
< Arvidt> like 0.17.0 could cleanly shutdown anyway...
< achow101> Arvidt: I believe that is part of the problem that I am investigating with gitian producing binaries without the 4th build number
< Arvidt> achow101: Great :-)
< Arvidt> Maybe for quality assurance a check could be added to a release process script that checks if the tar ball extracts to the exact version?
< Arvidt> I am not sure if also the RC versions should extract to the RC version named folders, e.g. 0.17.0rc1
< Arvidt> With the RC versions I had the same problem with the symlink as stated above
< esotericnonsense> Arvidt: non-specific to bitcoin, the binary changing out from underneath it shouldn't matter
< esotericnonsense> the running process will continue to hold a file descriptor to the "deleted" other version
< sipa> esotericnonsense: for some upgrades (though not 4th digit changes...) you may end up with difference in version between bitcoind and bitcoin-cli
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] JBaczuk opened pull request #14610: Docs: correction to test readme compile instructions (master...fix_test_readme_compile_instructions) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14610
< esotericnonsense> i suppose that's true
< provoostenator> achow101: if I use your commit, would my gitian build be incompatible with others? If so I'll push my sigs first using some manual workaround
< provoostenator> Unfortutely it's a bit of a pain because some of my commands break: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/docs/issues/18
< achow101> provoostenator: it probably would be incompatible
< achow101> provoostenator: if you use an older version of gitian-build.py, it should be fine
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] morenoh149 opened pull request #14611: align items in contrib init (master...morenoh149-patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14611
< provoostenator> hebasto: I think your workaround is causing my gitian to checksum the v0.17.0 binary instead of the new one.
< provoostenator> Maybe I applied it on the wrong lines though.
< provoostenator> Oh wait, that was macOS.
< provoostenator> Windows works for me.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #14612: Include full version number in released file names (master...fix-make-build-version) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14612
< achow101> provoostenator: Arvidt: ^ that should resolve these version number/filename problems for the future
< phantomcircuit> so uh
< phantomcircuit> how can i get something in build-aux/m4 to actually be used?
< phantomcircuit> seems the windows functional tests are still kind of buggy
< sipa> yes :(
< sipa> MarcoFalke: how is appveyor set up? there is a webhook from the bitcoin/bitcoin repo to appveyor, but how does appveyor get to report a CI status back?
< phantomcircuit> sipa, it's unfortunate