Bug#683323: unblock: python-apt/0.8.7

[Martin-Éric Racine <martin-eric.racine@iki.fi>]

ma, 2012-08-27 kello 13:24 +0200, Julian Andres Klode kirjoitti:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 02:10:17PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > ke, 2012-08-08 kello 01:50 +0200, Cyril Brulebois kirjoitti:
> > 
> > > Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org> (30/07/2012):
> > > > Since the version of testing, this contains mostly bug fixes and
> > > > many translation updates, but also (starting with 0.8.5) one new
> > > > module (apt.auth) which is a cleaned up version of an internal
> > > > software-properties module (and not used by any code in unstable
> > > > AFAIK).
> > > 
> > > Then I'm not sure we need or want this new module in wheezy…
> > 
> > Should this new module be rolled back and a new python-apt release
> > produced just for Wheezy, then?
> 
> How about adding a warning to the module that it is experimental? I'd
> like to avoid rolling back stuff we already have in newer. Otherwise,
> we could upload a 0.8.8 with a disabled module as well, but that might
> create problems later on with merging Ubuntu packages that depend on
> python-apt (>= 0.8.5) and expect apt.auth to be there.

I might be wrong but I think that Cyril's point in not accepting 0.8.7
into Testing was that it introduces new features after the freeze.

> We could also create a 0.8.4.1 release for testing, by branching off
> unstable's 0.8.7, merging the changelog entries for 0.8.5, 0.8.6,
> and 0.8.7 into 0.8.4.1, and removing apt.auth mentions, and disabling
> or removing that module. But that is a bit more work. We could also
> name 0.8.4.1 as 0.8.4+wheezy1, but given that unstable is past 0.8.4
> already, just using 0.8.4.X instead of 0.8.4+wheezyX seems a bit
> nicer.

Either one of 0.8.4.1 or  0.8.4+wheezyX could be introduced via
testing-security. Which of these two numbering scheme makes more sense
is another question. Cyril might have preferences for that.

Martin-Éric