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

Bug#678091: python-apt: recommends xz-lzma but does not use it



Package: python-apt
Version: 0.8.4
Severity: minor
Justification: http://bugs.debian.org/677991
Tags: patch

Hi,

Since December, 2011 (due to [*], presumably), python-apt recommends
xz-lzma to ensure apt's ExtractTar is capable of installing
lzma-compressed packages (like google-chrome).  Now in sid the xz-lzma
package is being removed in favor of xz-utils providing "lzma" through
the alternatives system directly, making that recommends harder to
literally satisfy.

Sorry I missed this before uploading.  We can add a Provides to
xz-utils if appropriate, but it seems that python-apt has not used the
"lzma" command in practice since apt 0.90.

  * apt-pkg/aptconfiguration.cc:
    - if present, prefer xz binary over lzma

How about something like this patch?

Thanks,
Jonathan

[*] http://bugs.debian.org/650507

diff --git i/debian/changelog w/debian/changelog
index c1b12cc8..daa410ca 100644
--- i/debian/changelog
+++ w/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+python-apt (0.8.4+nmu1) local; urgency=low
+
+  * debian/control:
+    - recommend apt (>= 0.9.0) for lzma-comp support without the lzma command
+    - remove no longer needed xz-lzma recommendation
+
+ -- Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>  Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:54:05 -0500
+
 python-apt (0.8.4) unstable; urgency=low
 
   [ Michael Vogt ]
diff --git i/debian/control w/debian/control
index 29392858..47b12383 100644
--- i/debian/control
+++ w/debian/control
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ Vcs-Browser: http://bzr.debian.org/loggerhead/apt/python-apt/debian-sid/changes
 Package: python-apt
 Architecture: any
 Depends: ${python:Depends}, ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, python-apt-common
-Recommends: lsb-release, iso-codes, python2.6, xz-lzma
+Recommends: lsb-release, iso-codes, python2.6, apt (>= 0.9.0~exp1)
 Breaks: packagekit-backend-apt (<= 0.4.8-0ubuntu4),
         computer-janitor (<< 1.14.1-1+),
         debdelta (<< 0.41+),
-- 



Reply to: