On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:26:54PM +0930, Ron wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 05:15:14PM +0200, J??r??my Bobbio wrote: > > python-wxgtk2.4 has not been transitioned to the new Debian policy. > > This should be fixed. Anyone familiar with the changes required, > please do so. I don't have time to come up to speed on this > immediately.
The interface changes between python-wxgtk2.4 and python-wxgtk2.6 are minor. It's really easy to port an application from the former to the later. Also, my research about the possibility to remove python-wxgtk2.4 demonstrated that it could be easily done, either by really small patches (done for bittorent-gui and pyro) and update to newer upstream versions (e.g. thuban, gnue-forms). > > This now breaks package depending on it (#391075 is an example), > > severity has been raised accordingly. > > > > The best solution could be to ship etch without the obsolete > > python-wxgtk2.4 at all. Here's the remaining reverse dependencies: > > Why is it that python seems to blind almost all of its users to > anything that is _not_ python? (this is not a snipe, I'm genuinely > curious ...) > > In this case, what you missed appears to be, at least: > Reverse Depends: > [...] I was interested in helping this transition for Python because it seemed doable whereas a lot harder for other bindings. I see this as a first step to get wxwindows2.4 and gtk1.2 out of etch+1. But if you think that the maintainers of the remaining blocker bugs (only 6, as two of them are Depending on both python-wxgtk2.4 and python-wxgtk2.6) won't be able to act on time, you can just withdraw the work I've done. Regards, -- Jérémy
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
