Bug#860414: jessie-pu: package apt-xapian-index/0.47
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: jessie
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Hi!
stable is affected by #793681 just the same as unstable. And as the
0.47 in stable actually also got rid of python-support already the
exactly same fix works there as well. I've attached the relevant
debdiff. I have tested installation of both the old and new version in
a clean chroot and confirmed
a) old version is affected in stable
b) new version is not
c) new version actually builds the index and doesn't have the problem re #537376
Christoph
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 9.0
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/16 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_IE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_IE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
diff -Nru apt-xapian-index-0.47/debian/changelog apt-xapian-index-0.47+nmu1/debian/changelog
--- apt-xapian-index-0.47/debian/changelog 2014-08-24 19:44:58.000000000 +0200
+++ apt-xapian-index-0.47+nmu1/debian/changelog 2017-04-16 14:38:29.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+apt-xapian-index (0.47+nmu1) jessie; urgency=medium
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * Remove call to update-python-modules (Closes: #793681)
+
+ -- Christoph Egger <christoph@debian.org> Sun, 16 Apr 2017 14:38:29 +0200
+
apt-xapian-index (0.47) unstable; urgency=low
[ Enrico Zini ]
diff -Nru apt-xapian-index-0.47/debian/postinst apt-xapian-index-0.47+nmu1/debian/postinst
--- apt-xapian-index-0.47/debian/postinst 2014-08-24 19:44:58.000000000 +0200
+++ apt-xapian-index-0.47+nmu1/debian/postinst 2017-04-16 14:38:29.000000000 +0200
@@ -28,8 +28,6 @@
if [ ! -x /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d ] || /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d apt-xapian-index start
then
echo "apt-xapian-index: Building new index in background..."
- # Ensure that we can use our module. See #537376
- update-python-modules -p
$IONICE nice /usr/sbin/update-apt-xapian-index --force --quiet &
fi
fi
Reply to: