Re: About the current state of the Yum package in Lenny
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Vincent Danjean wrote:
>> 3) perhaps, try to push what is available in lenny backport into a point-release
>> of lenny. This will depends on how many bug fix are present, how intrusive
>> the changes are, the release maintainers opinion, ...
>> For me, 3 is not the more important. Work on yum/rpm should have been done
>> earlier to be added in lenny. So you should mainly ensure that squeeze will
>> be in good shape with respect to yum/rpm. And backports is here for lenny
>> users if they really needed it.
> I do agree with you. I even posted on the BTS the URL of GPLHost's own
> Debian repository that I manage so there is a workable solution NOW.
> My employee, which know python a lot better than me, is working on a
> patch. I'm not sure we will be able to have it working without
> python-iniparse, but we will try.
> That being said, if we can't have a working yum without new python
> modules, I do insist: yum shall be REMOVED from Lenny, as it's BROKEN.
I guess we should investigate if we can have a working yum without new
> More about this later on, after Manuel's python work on the package.
Ok, thanks already for looking into it.