Growing file lists after python2.7 rebuild
i, (I realise this list is primarily on packaging Python modules, but since I got no response from the Python maintainer, I'm trying it here) I prepared a security update for python2.7 in stable-security fixing CVE-2013-4238 and CVE-2014-1912. But rebuilding the package caused changes in the file list which are not obvious to me: In python2.7-minimal: +/usr/lib/python2.7/lib-dynload/_hashlib.so +/usr/lib/python2.7/lib-dynload/_ssl.so In python2.7: +/usr/lib/python2.7/lib-dynload/_hashlib.so +/usr/lib/python2.7/lib-dynload/_ssl.so Does anyone have an idea what's going wrong? debian/rules has some commented entries for lib-dynload/_bsddb.so, so this seems to be a generic problem? This happened both for my local build and on the buildd. Source package and build log are on http://people.debian.org/~jmm/ Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140311173017.ga17...@inutil.org
Re: Python 2 support for Bullseye
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 08:21:09PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > As such, I'd propose to include Python 2 (plus the small set of > > support packages) in Bullseye > > ok. I think you should explicitly name all these packages. Yeah. I think the final list is still TBD (e.g. depends on whether Chromium still gets a Py3 port in time for the freeze). > > but exempt it from support (and then > > remove it for good after the Bullseye release): > > not ok. That would mean removing pypy3 from the archive as well. If you don't > want to support Python2, then why do you care about it's removal for > bullseye+1? Ok. I assumed the need for Py2 in pypy3 was a temporary thing? If it's needed for longer (is there an estimate of sorts?), I'm also fine with keeping it longer. > > - Mark src:python (plus related support packages) as unsupported in > > debian-security-support and with a README.Debian in the source > > package (and given how prominent Python is, also in the release notes) > > That should list the binary packages, there's no src:python package. I acually meant src:python2.7, debian-security-support only operates on source packages (and then flags all installed binary packages). Cheers, Moritz
Re: Python 2 support for Bullseye
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 09:36:09PM +0300, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > Hi Moritz! > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 08:04:56PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > > There will be few core packages build-depending on Python 2 (for tests > > or building) which won't be ready for Python 3 for Bullseye (Chromium, > > qtwebkit and IIRC also Pypy), but those only need Python 2 (and a very > > small set of support packages like setuptools/jinja) to build and > > run their tests. > > Small correction: s/qtwebkit/qtwebengine/. Ack, that one, they keep changing names to often :-) > There are also patches from the FreeBSD maintainer [2], but they are huge > (2200 lines in total) and the author reports that they cause some JS errors, > so I would better not apply them and wait for an official port. Definitely. > Qt WebEngine in Debian is not supported from security point of view anyway, > so I think it should be fine to let it use Python 2 in Bullseye. Yeah, given that it's only at build time for sources we control it's entirely fine. Cheers, Moritz
Re: Bug#936604: FYI: Python 3 migration of distributuion
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 03:21:06PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > It's a fork with a new upstream with some issues. (Not supported by > the old upstream) > > Anyway, I switched out from getmail to other MUA. > > No one seems to take over this package maintenance. > > So please remove this package. Ack, will file an RM bug. > I am not going to package the new getmail6. getmail6 _is_ packaged already :-) https://packages.qa.debian.org/g/getmail6.html Cheers, Moritz
