Re: Having trouble with newt
On Sunday 23 March 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:45:57 +0000
>
> David Goodenough <david.goodenough@btconnect.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday 23 March 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 10:39 +0000, David Goodenough wrote:
> > > > I am working my way through building all the base files for i386, and
> > > > I have hit a problem with newt.
> > > >
> > > > It complains about python2.5/_snackmodule.so, which is not found.
> > >
> > > That call should be removed - the patches might be out of date. Ensure
> > > that any python packages are removed from debian/control and comment
> > > out any calls to python in debian/rules.
> >
> > Well the patches are refreshed each time emsource is run, so I presume
> > you mean that the SVN patches are not up to date.
>
> For newt, possibly. Feel free to change the files manually. I'll see
> about updating them soon.
>
> > > Well, I'm not currently - same reason as perl.
> >
> > Thank is what I thought, which is why I was surprised to see a python
> > problem.
>
> The problem is that updated packages can break the patches and limited
> time means that it is hard to keep up.
>
> It's a little awkward right now - we need dpkg variant support to
> provide an autobuilder but that can't realistically be implemented
> until after Lenny is released but the drive towards the Lenny release
> means more work until, gradually, more and more of our packages get
> frozen in Debian which allows time to catch up.
Sorry to keep harking back to OpenWrt, but their way of doing this is
to have a file per package which says which version the patches apply to
(and where to get the original). Given that Debian keeps old versions
around can we not take the same approach? I realise that we then have
to keep on upgrading the control file, but surely that is better than
continually breaking things. Just a thought.
David
Reply to: