Debian Bug report logs - #597880
unblock: python-stdlib-extensions/2.6.6-1

Package: release.debian.org; Maintainer for release.debian.org is Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>;

Reported by: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:45:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: moreinfo

Done: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@debian.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox

Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#597880; Package release.debian.org. (Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:45:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:45:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

python-stdlib-extensions (2.6.6-1) unstable; urgency=low

  * Bump the package version to 2.6.6.

 -- Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>  Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:51:11 +0200

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#597880; Package release.debian.org. (Fri, 24 Sep 2010 19:15:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 24 Sep 2010 19:15:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #10 received at 597880@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 21:42 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> python-stdlib-extensions (2.6.6-1) unstable; urgency=low
> 
>    * Bump the package version to 2.6.6.

Possibly a silly question, but... why?

Regards,

Adam

Added tag(s) moreinfo. Request was from Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Fri, 24 Sep 2010 19:15:08 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#597880; Package release.debian.org. (Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:24:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:24:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #17 received at 597880@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 20:14 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 21:42 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > python-stdlib-extensions (2.6.6-1) unstable; urgency=low
> > 
> >    * Bump the package version to 2.6.6.
> 
> Possibly a silly question, but... why?

Ping?

Regards,

Adam

Acknowledgement sent to Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 08 Oct 2010 08:42:08 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #22 received at 597880@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On 07.10.2010 21:20, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 20:14 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 21:42 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> python-stdlib-extensions (2.6.6-1) unstable; urgency=low
>>>
>>>     * Bump the package version to 2.6.6.
>>
>> Possibly a silly question, but... why?
>
> Ping?

same for python-profiler. Python 2.6 is split in more than one source package 
for packaging and license reasons. Why accept just one of these, and not the others?

  Matthias

Message #27 received at 597880@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Fri, October 8, 2010 09:38, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 07.10.2010 21:20, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 20:14 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 21:42 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>> python-stdlib-extensions (2.6.6-1) unstable; urgency=low
>>>>
>>>>     * Bump the package version to 2.6.6.
>>>
>>> Possibly a silly question, but... why?
>>
>> Ping?
>
> same for python-profiler.

That has other changes (and no unblock request, afaics).

> Python 2.6 is split in more than one source package
> for packaging and license reasons.

Indeed.

The only change in python-stdlib-extensions appears to be the version
number, so I was simply querying whether there was some reason I'd missed
that it was technically necessary for all of the involved packages to have
exactly the same version number if there was no functional change between
2.6.5-1 and 2.6.6-1.

Regards,

Adam

Message #32 received at 597880@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On 08.10.2010 10:59, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Fri, October 8, 2010 09:38, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 07.10.2010 21:20, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 20:14 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 21:42 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>>> python-stdlib-extensions (2.6.6-1) unstable; urgency=low
>>>>>
>>>>>      * Bump the package version to 2.6.6.
>>>>
>>>> Possibly a silly question, but... why?
>>>
>>> Ping?
>>
>> same for python-profiler.
>
> That has other changes (and no unblock request, afaics).

then please consider this request for python-profiler too.

>> Python 2.6 is split in more than one source package
>> for packaging and license reasons.
>
> Indeed.
>
> The only change in python-stdlib-extensions appears to be the version
> number, so I was simply querying whether there was some reason I'd missed
> that it was technically necessary for all of the involved packages to have
> exactly the same version number if there was no functional change between
> 2.6.5-1 and 2.6.6-1.

No, I don't know of any functional change.  I'm just waiting for the first bug 
report that the version numbers don't match.

The only package I know that depends on the subminor version number is the 
apache plugin.  But I assume that somebody did take care of this when approving 
the migration of 2.6.6 to testing.

  Matthias

Message #37 received at 597880@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Fri, October 8, 2010 11:26, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 08.10.2010 10:59, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> The only change in python-stdlib-extensions appears to be the version
>> number, so I was simply querying whether there was some reason I'd
>> missed that it was technically necessary for all of the involved
>> packages to have exactly the same version number if there was no
>> functional change between 2.6.5-1 and 2.6.6-1.
>
> No, I don't know of any functional change.  I'm just waiting for the first
> bug report that the version numbers don't match.

The reporters of such bugs should probably be told not to be so fixated on
version numbers... in any case, unblocked.

> The only package I know that depends on the subminor version number is the
> apache plugin.

That would explain #592988; I assume that just needs a round of binNMUs.

> But I assume that somebody did take care of this when
> approving the migration of 2.6.6 to testing.

How would they have known?  The dependencies of libapache2-mod-python only
specify "libpython2.6 (>= 2.6), python (<< 2.7), python (>= 2.6)" which
provides no hint at all that they need a more specific version (and smells
rather like an RC bug in that package).

Regards,

Adam

Message #42 received at 597880@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Fri, October 8, 2010 11:26, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 08.10.2010 10:59, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> On Fri, October 8, 2010 09:38, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> On 07.10.2010 21:20, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 20:14 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 21:42 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>>>> python-stdlib-extensions (2.6.6-1) unstable; urgency=low
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      * Bump the package version to 2.6.6.
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly a silly question, but... why?
>>>>
>>>> Ping?
>>>
>>> same for python-profiler.
>>
>> That has other changes (and no unblock request, afaics).
>
> then please consider this request for python-profiler too.

+ standard library. They were move to a non-free package because of

s/move/&d/

Unblocked.

Regards,

Adam

Reply sent to Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@debian.org>:
You have taken responsibility. (Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:21:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Notification sent to Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. (Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:21:08 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #47 received at 597880-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On 10/08/2010 02:26 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> 
> Unblocked.
> 

and closing the bugreport.

Regards,

-- 
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http://dogguy.org/

Bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org> to internal_control@bugs.debian.org. (Sat, 20 Nov 2010 07:33:38 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.

Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Tue Jan 30 07:27:13 2024; Machine Name: bembo

Debian Bug tracking system

Debbugs is free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU Public License version 2. The current version can be obtained from https://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/.

Debian Bug report logs - #597880 unblock: python-stdlib-extensions/2.6.6-1

Debian Bug report logs - #597880
unblock: python-stdlib-extensions/2.6.6-1