[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: About the current state of the Yum package in Lenny

Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Luk Claes wrote:
>> Why is the python-iniparse also needed? That's not clear from the bug
>> report.
> Very simple: yum crashes with a not-so-nice error message when I try to
> boostrap a CentOS complaining about the iniparse python module not being
> present.
> I should have add it to the bug report, but it didn't talk about
> python-iniparse, #496137 was just about python-gpgme. I have just added
> an entry for it in the BTS to make that clear.


>> http://www.debian.org/releases/proposed-updates
> My question was more: what's the way to have a package uploaded in pu.
> Should I write in a particular list? This one maybe?

It's all mentioned on that page. If it's not clear, please tell me what
part so we can update it.

> Andres Salomon wrote:
>> 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.
> Then I guess both rpm and yum should be orphaned. Could this be done now
> so we can move on?

Well only yum is offered for adoption.

> Luk Claes wrote:
>> anibal is one of the maintainers of rpm, but not of yum. rpm was
>> uploaded less than a month ago to experimental, I don't think you can
>> blame them for being inactive.
> Sure it was, but still with the same upstream version, which doesn't fix
> #509444. I hope that a newer upstream version can be uploaded soon. The
> changelog is quite impressive though, and seems to be a good work (I
> didn't read more than the changelog). It shows Loic Minier
> <lool@dooz.org>, not Anibal Monsalve Salazar or Andres Salomon that
> still seems to be unactive on maintainership. I'm now adding Loic as Cc:
> as he seems to be the one that cares about all this, and I guess Andres
> shouldn't be in the loop anymore (as per what he said).

Right, though that might be related to not wanting to rush things before
the release which will hopefully not be an argument anymore now :-)



Reply to: