Your message dated Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:20:40 -0400
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line
has caused the Debian Bug report #558205,
regarding zope.interface: consider reinstating python-zopeinterface
transitional package
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
558205: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=558205
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: zope.interface
Version: 3.5.2-2
Severity: normal
python-zope.interface Provides: python-zopeinterface. However, there are two
problems with this:
1) Package managers don't seem to replace python-zopeinterface (from zope3)
with python-zope.interface (from z.i) automatically:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/zope.interface/+bug/444579
(I use aptitude, and my copy of p-zi wasn't automatically replaced with
p-z.i either; forcibly switching from p-zi to p-z.i worked fine though)
2) A couple of packages (python-asynqueue and pybridge-common) have versioned
dependencies on python-zopeinterface, which can't be satisfied by a
Provides, making them uninstallable in sid; bugs should be filed against
them (I'll do this soon, unless you get there first).
(2) is part of what's preventing zope3, which has RC bugs including two
security vulnerabilities, from being dropped from testing.
Best practice to handle this sort of thing seems to be to have a transitional
package, and keep it for one release cycle (i.e. remove it from unstable just
after squeeze is released).
If you plan to add a transitional package, the bugs in (2) can have a low
severity; if not, they should have a release-critical severity, since the
packages in question are uninstallable.
Regards,
Simon
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This bug is ancient so anything depending on the old package name should have
been ported by now. Besides, as Fabio says, we really don't want to
reintroduce this.
pgpYUuvHPwL52.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
