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

Re: Packages that pretend to support Python 2.4

Hi Jakub (2010.05.17_20:01:25_+0200)
> 19 packages uses syntax constructs specific to Python 2.5+ in their
> public modules but don't declare that minimum supported version is 2.5.
> I'm looking for volunteers to do MBF.

Done, only 13 real bugs.

calibre_0.5.14+dfsg-1               False positive
elyxer_0.98-1                       Fixed in 0.98-2
epigrass_2.0.1~dfsg-1               False positive
idjc_0.8.2-2                        False positive
moovida-plugins-bad_1.0.9+bzr1614-1 Existing bug: http://bugs.debian.org/572188
python-apptools_3.3.1-1             False positive
python-django-treebeard_1.60-3      Filed http://bugs.debian.org/582045
python-docky_2.0.3.1-1              Filed http://bugs.debian.org/582046
python-envisageplugins_3.1.2-1      False positive
python-lamson_1.0pre11-1            Filed http://bugs.debian.org/582047
python-netio230a_1.0.1-2            Filed http://bugs.debian.org/582048
python-paver_1.0.2-1                Existing bug: http://bugs.debian.org/575186
python-pesto_16-1                   Filed http://bugs.debian.org/582050
python-pydhcplib_0.6.2-1            Filed http://bugs.debian.org/582051
python-tegaki-gtk_0.3.1-1           Filed http://bugs.debian.org/582052
python-tegaki_0.3.1-1               Existing bug: http://bugs.debian.org/577096
python-traitsbackendqt_3.3.0-1      Filed http://bugs.debian.org/582054
python-traitsbackendwx_3.3.0-1      False positive
pytrainer_1.7.2-1                   Filed http://bugs.debian.org/582056

All the bugs were just errors thrown in the python-support hook, except
for python-traitsbackendqt (Bug #582054) which was an install failure.

I've usertagged them all python2.4-incompatible.

A possibly cause for these issues is Bug #582061 where the
python-support documentation isn't as clear as it could be about
specifying python-version compatibility.


Stefano Rivera
  H: +27 21 465 6908 C: +27 72 419 8559  UCT: x3127

Reply to: