On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:28:00PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 16:36 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > A quick note first, as I noticed the subject was updated to reference > > 0.8.8... That version isn't a valid candidate right now in any case, as > > it FTBFS on approximately half the architectures - see > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=python-apt > > Any news on that?
Sorry for the delay and thanks for your mail. This is fallout from a recent change in apt (to handle packages that have no architectures) in our testsuite. I fixed it in bzr and its ready to upload but I'm traveling right now and my network is pretty bad, so building is a bit difficult for me right now. If someone from the team could upload it that would be great, otherwise I will do it once I found a reasonable network connection. > > On Mon, 2012-10-15 at 09:14 +0200, Michael Vogt wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 01:48:52PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > > > > 2012/9/3 Michael Vogt <m...@debian.org>: > > >I would slightly > > > prefer 0.8.8 as the auth.py module is IMO a good idea compared to > > > having multiple apps duplicating this code in various places. > > > > Whilst I agree that reducing code duplication is generally a good thing, > > for wheezy the practical difference is presumably none given that > > nothing outside of python-apt itself would be using the code? > > Did I miss anything here? I don't have a strong opinion either way, I'm happy to remove the apt.auth module and upload that to wheezy or use the updated one from 0.8.8 - but I would really like to get the bugfixes from 0.8.8.1 in if possible. Cheers, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121114113628.GS5283@localhost
