On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 07:11:08PM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > I thought myself that it could have been some transition from > previously using 2.3. And BTW I saw same message with many other > packages. > > > I take it there is no substantive reason the package needs python 2.3 > > as opposed to 2.4. > why do you keep saying that it needs 2.3? it doesn't as you saw from > dpkg -s. Or have I misunderstood you?
I'm saying it doesn't need 2.3, so I think it's a misunderstanding. I had in mind the distinction between "substantive" and "formal" reasons. A substantive reason would be that if you attempted to run fail2ban on a system without python 2.3 it wouldn't work. This could even be for a silly reason, like the scripts have #! /usr/bin/python2.3 in them. By "formal" reason I meant that something in the packaging system thinks fail2ban needs or uses python 2.3 (even though it doesn't). Something thinks that, and so it's producing the message during the installation. "formal" isn't a great term, but I mean relating to the meta-information about the package. This cases seems to concern the meta-information in the python infrastructure. > > > Wow, this is even weirder when looking at > > $ dpkg -s fail2ban > > Package: fail2ban > > Status: install ok installed > > Priority: optional > > Section: net > > Installed-Size: 488 > > Maintainer: Yaroslav Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Architecture: all > > Version: 0.7.5-2 > > Depends: python2.4, python-central (>= 0.5.8), python (>= 2.4), iptables, > > lsb-base (>= 2.0-7) > > Suggests: python-gamin, mailx > > > Ross > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
