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

Bug#868128: stretch-pu: package python-imaplib2/2.55-1



Control: tags -1 + confirmed

On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 10:39 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Ilias Tsitsimpis <iliastsi@debian.org> (2017-07-12):
> > Due to cut'n'paste error, the python3-imaplib2 package in stretch
> > declares no dependencies (#867437). Do you believe this is something
> > worth fixing in stretch? Attached is the proposed diff.
> 
> This would look good to me.
> 
> > diff -Nru python-imaplib2-2.55/debian/changelog python-imaplib2-2.55/debian/changelog
> > --- python-imaplib2-2.55/debian/changelog	2016-09-09 20:11:08.000000000 +0300
> > +++ python-imaplib2-2.55/debian/changelog	2017-07-12 11:37:15.000000000 +0300
> > @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
> > +python-imaplib2 (2.55-1+deb9u1) stable-proposed-updates; urgency=medium
> 
> Please target “stretch” instead.
> 
> > +  * Fix typo that resulted in missing dependencies for python3-imaplib2.
> > +    Thanks to Adrian Bunk for reporting this (Closes: #867437)
> > +
> > + -- Ilias Tsitsimpis <iliastsi@debian.org>  Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:37:15 +0300
> > +
> >  python-imaplib2 (2.55-1) unstable; urgency=medium
> >  
> >    * New upstream release.
> > diff -Nru python-imaplib2-2.55/debian/control python-imaplib2-2.55/debian/control
> > --- python-imaplib2-2.55/debian/control	2016-09-09 20:11:08.000000000 +0300
> > +++ python-imaplib2-2.55/debian/control	2017-07-12 11:36:39.000000000 +0300
> > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
> >  
> >  Package: python3-imaplib2
> >  Architecture: all
> > -Depends: ${python:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}
> > +Depends: ${python3:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}
> >  Description: Threaded Python IMAP4 client (Python 3)
> >   Python IMAP4 rev1 mail protocol client class using threads for parallel
> >   operation, allowing full use of the IMAP4 concurrency features and to
> 
> This might need to wait until 9.2 since 9.1 freeze is coming up shortly,
> and the fixed version hasn't reached testing yet.

If the upload could happen today, I'd be okay with getting it into 9.1
on the basis that testing migration would happen before the point
release itself.

Regards,

Adam


Reply to: