Le ven 8 septembre 2006 14:51, Ludovic Rousseau a écrit : > Le 07.09.2006, à 16:55:59, Pierre Habouzit a écrit: > > # sorry pal, but such a bug renders the package completely > > unusable, and # is also a policy violation. > > Why is the package completely unusable? I just see a complain by dpkg > that /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/PyPlucker/ is not empty. > > I agree with the policy violation. Note that I adopted the package > recently and the problem was already there. the problem is that under some condition, even with the missing .py, the .pyc are seen as validate candidates to do an import. this often lead in broken setups. > > so now, you are just "fucked", you have to : > > 1. rm -rf /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/PyPlucker/ in the > > preinst of your package. > > OK. > > The plucker package is not available in Debian stable. I imagine it > had a RC bug when sarge was released since the first package version > is dated Dec 2000. > > So only people using unstable or testing _and_ running the scripts as > root will suffer from this bug. How long should I keep the "rm" in > preinst? Until etch is released ? yes you will be able to drop that in etch+1, because upgrades from a stable release to the one after the next is not supported. We assume users always upgrade from one stable to the next. > Or can I just close the bug without adding anything in preinst since > packages in unstable/testing _may_ have bugs. no, packages un unstable/testing cannot have known bugs. they *may* have not-yet-known ones. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp47DFXQgiko.pgp
Description: PGP signature