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

Re: Bug#673586: FTBFS if Python 3.2 is installed in chroot



Hi Didier,

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 06:11:12PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Hi Steve,

> thanks for your two bugreports.

> 
> Le mercredi, 15 mai 2013 10.03:38, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > As Ubuntu uses python3, not python2, in its base system, we are building
> > lsb against python3.  So this patch will be included in Ubuntu shortly.

> Does this imply Ubuntu will use Debian's lsb package directly ? As you can see 
> from the packaging, I have already included some Ubuntu-specificities and 
> would be happy to include remaining ones if need be; just keep reporting 
> issues! Reducing the diff to zero would be a nice improvement!

Well, this was the first time the lsb package has been merged into Ubuntu
from Debian in about four years; so there's still a delta, which we can try
to clean up (that's always the goal) - but at this point it's too early to
say whether we'll be able to get them in sync.

However, seeing that the package is in collab-maint, I'm going to go ahead
and pick off some of the lower-hanging fruit right now by pushing the fixes
to git.

The remaining delta consists of a few pieces:

 - The actual switch to python3.  What are your thoughts on this?  It's not
   a high priority for the python team in Debian as it is in Ubuntu, but it
   should be safe.  The packaging in Ubuntu currently relies on running 2to3
   at build time, however; since this is a native package, if we want to
   switch to python3 (and given that you already have python2.6 as the
   baseline for modules), we should really make those changes in place in
   the code.  Do you agree?  Would you like to go ahead and make this
   change?

 - pidofproc.  Debian and Ubuntu have independently applied fixes to solve
   the return code of this function in certain cases; I'm confident based on
   the history that the current behavior of the Ubuntu implementation is
   correct, but I haven't had a chance to compare it with the Debian
   implementation, so I've kept the Ubuntu implementation for now.  If you
   would be happy taking the Ubuntu version, I could send you a diff;
   otherwise I should find the time to review the Debian version and compare
   the logic.

 - lsb-core Multi-Arch: foreign.  This is a hack, we probably want to figure
   out how to fix this properly.

 - mailx preferred over mailutils, because bsd-mailx is in main in Ubuntu
   and mailutils is not.  There's been discussion just today about whether
   these should be swapped after all, so I don't think any action should be
   taken for this in Debian right now.

So certainly nothing insurmountable, but it'll take a little time to get
things fully in sync.

Oh, fwiw, I have to say I'm not a fan of the derived_from_ubuntu logic in
the Debian package.  I think it's vastly preferable to keep such differences
as source package deltas than to have the same source package give different
results when built on different derivatives.  I'm not sure it's worth
changing it in this case, but if you were to drop the Ubuntu-specific bits
from the Debian package, that would be just fine with me.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: