On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:30:30PM -0600, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote: > > But then please don't spend your night on that particular package. While I > > was replying to you, someone raised a bug (#683331) that should probably > > be fixed before tahoe-lafs would be included in wheezy. So I'll probably > > close this one, and schedule inclusion for Wheezy+1 if possible (cause it > > means packaging new python modules, yeepi, glad to learn that *now*) > > Hm, #683331 is that tahoe-lafs exits immediately with an error on > startup if there is no "ifconfig" executable, which means tahoe-lafs > package depends on the net-tools package. That is just as true of > Tahoe-LAFS 1.9.1 as of 1.9.2, so the existence of that bug is probably > not a reason to leave 1.9.1 in Wheezy. > > I would recommend that you upgrade to 1.9.2 (after Julien inspects the > changes), and also that you fix #683331 by adding a dependency on > net-tools.
Yeah, but this bug also raised the fact that python-pyutil and python-zbase32 should be added as dependencies too, so that was my main motivation not to include tahoe-lafs in Wheezy, as they are not yet packaged into Debian. Still, in your reply to #683331, you make it quite clear that tahoe-lafs isn't concerned by that, and should work normally (as I noticed during my tests) without them. This python modules should only be dependencies of python-zfec, if people want to use it by hand. So I guess it's fine to leave tahoe-lafs 1.9.2 in Wheezy. I'll take care to add a dependency on net-tools in a later update. So Julien, you were definitively right to unblock it. ;) That was quite an intense evening. :) bert. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120730225308.GC3565@localhost
