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

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

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:35:20AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Philipp Kern wrote:
> > I'm curious why python-pyme is not sufficient.
> It's simply a MISTAKE that has been done by the last maintainer of yum,
> python-pyme is NOT the correct python package, python-gpgme is the right
> one. python-pyme is fully in python, while python-gpgme is written in C.
> Maybe it would be possible to have yum working with python-pyme (I
> didn't dive into it, and have no intention to do so), but I think it's
> really not worth so much trouble having a special crafted yum that will
> be different from upstream, when the solution is to use the correct package.

Did you take a look at the source?  Well, I did now.  Exactly two functions
are affected: return_keyids_from_pubring and import_key_to_pubring, both
in misc.py.

While it was obviously wrong by the yum maintainer to apply that patch
to correct the import[0], it should also be easy to port it to pyme[1].
Considering that only few lines of Python are needed, maybe you could
concentrate on that.

> No new package == no working yum.

Re python-iniparse:  why should it be needed?  There is a ImportError
guard in the source so that it falls back to Python's ConfigParser.
Paste the error to the bug report and maybe fix the import.

Leaving your rant aside:  maybe you should just get someone who knows
Python to fix the bug.  It seems reasonably easy to be and within the
scope of a patch that could be accepted.

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern

[0] http://patch-tracking.debian.net/patch/misc/view/yum/3.2.12-1.2/yum/misc.py
[1] http://pyme.sourceforge.net/doc/pyme/
 .''`.  Philipp Kern                        Debian Developer
: :' :  http://philkern.de                         Release Assistant
`. `'   xmpp:phil@0x539.de                         Stable Release Manager
  `-    finger pkern/key@db.debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: