On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 02:18:26PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: >Anand Kumria writes: >>On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 12:38:05PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: >>>Anand Kumria writes: >>>>Hi Matthias, >>>> >>>>Have you tested this with any software dependant on RPM or is this a >>>>mechanical conversion?
I'll start building packages with rpm as reverse dependency to find out wich ones FTBFS. >>You didn't answer this question - so, I'm assuming this is just a blind >>application of the updated python policy. > >please stop spreading fud. I didn't enable python-rpm to use >python2.4. Please ask the guy who did upload the initial >python2.4-rpm package to unstable. So I'm the wrong adressee. I applied the patch that dropped the python2.3 binary package. I should have asked Anand before uploading 4.4.1-9. >OTOH you don't give any hint what you expect to break. > > Matthias Best Regards, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar -- http://v7w.com/anibal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
