Re: Bug#683323: unblock: python-apt/0.8.7
Hi,
A quick note first, as I noticed the subject was updated to reference
0.8.8... That version isn't a valid candidate right now in any case, as
it FTBFS on approximately half the architectures - see
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=python-apt
On Mon, 2012-10-15 at 09:14 +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 01:48:52PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > 2012/9/3 Michael Vogt <mvo@debian.org>:
> > > I created a branch at
> > > http://anonscm.debian.org/bzr/bzr/apt/python-apt/debian-wheezy/ that
> > > is based on the debian-sid branch but disables auth.py. I am happy to
> > > upload this to wheezy if that approach is approved by the release
> > > team.
[...]
> > A separate branch was created for Wheezy and a debdiff submitted. Is
> > there anything else missing to move this issue forward and achieve a
> > concensus about what will be allowed into Testing?
Unfortunately, that debdiff never made it to debian-release@ due to the
size of the diff.
Extracting it from the BTS and excluding *.po{,t}, tests/* and the
disabled module brings it down to
20 files changed, 523 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-)
which is a little more manageable.
A good chunk of that diff appears to be data file / documentation
updates, the changelog and some Python 3 string-handling fixes. The rest
of the fixes look sane enough.
> It would be great to know the direction, I uploaded a version of
> python-apt 0.8.8 to sid in the meantime with some more fixes. I am
> happy to cherry pick the fixes to the wheezy branch - but of course I
> need to know if thats the way forward or if 0.8.8 (with the auth.py
> module) is allowed to get in. I'm happy either way. I would slightly
> prefer 0.8.8 as the auth.py module is IMO a good idea compared to
> having multiple apps duplicating this code in various places.
Whilst I agree that reducing code duplication is generally a good thing,
for wheezy the practical difference is presumably none given that
nothing outside of python-apt itself would be using the code?
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: