Re: About the current state of the Yum package in Lenny
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:08:49 +0100
Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> wrote:
> Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Even though Debian is not RPM based, it's very important to have a
> > working Yum package in Debian, just to be able to setup all sorts
> > of yum based distribution in a chroot for setting-up VMs.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > Unfortunately, it seems that the current maintainer of Yum in Debian
> > haven't been active for a long time, and the current package in
> > Lenny is simply not working. I consider that having a non-working
> > yum package in Debian Lenny is a grave regression.
>
> I've put the co-maintainer in Cc so he can comment on whether he wants
> to take over full maintainership or wants extra co-maintainers or
> wants to orphan the package...
>
> > With a little bit of communication, I've been able to make a
> > working yum package, and I could setup a CentOS on a Xen dom0 Lenny
> > server. Please read this:
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=496137
> >
> > Having yum working means that we need the python-iniparse and
> > python-gpgme packages (which will both reach SID after Lenny is
> > out, as said the new package maintainers), as SHOULD depend on it.
> > The Lenny version doesn't unfortunately.
>
> Why is the python-iniparse also needed? That's not clear from the bug
> report.
>
> > My proposal, as it's of course too late for the first release of
> > Lenny, is that python-iniparse and python-gpgme, plus a patched
> > version of Yum, would be prepared and send in "lenny proposed
> > updates". The thing is that:
> >
> > - I don't know what is the way to send it to proposed updates
>
> http://www.debian.org/releases/proposed-updates
>
> > - I'm not comfortable with python packages, and I don't think it's a
> > good idea that I take over the maintainership of yum in Debian, even
> > though I really need this package. Any volunteer out there?
>
> Waiting for an answer of the co-maintainer...
>
> Cheers
>
> Luk
I was only working on it on behalf of OLPC. Since I'm no longer with
them, I don't really have any interest in working on it. I would suggest
giving it to someone who has a use for it.
Reply to: