Your message dated Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:20:58 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#712604: nmu: python-scientific_2.9.2-4
has caused the Debian Bug report #712604,
regarding nmu: python-scientific_2.9.2-4
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.)
--
712604: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=712604
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: [email protected]
Usertags: binnmu
Hello
It seems that with the latest python the extensions are expected to be under
/usr/lib/python2.x/site-package/<package>/gnukfreebsd9 instead of gnukfreebsd8
(when the package was uploaded)
the first effect is that the package is broken under kfreebsd but also that it
cause FTBFS for other packages.
like the current state of mmtk.
I do not know if other packages are affected by this problem, and I do not know
if this nmu is the
right way to deal with this issue.
I am trying to find a better to way to deal with this with the upstream (move
the Extension in the right
namespace instead of building this kind of Extension)
thanks
Frederic
nmu python-scientific_2.9.2-4 . kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 . -m "Rebuild to
take into account the new toolchain"
-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1,
'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 3.9-1-486
Locale: LANG=fr_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:46:04 +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote (15 Nov 2013 16:40:40 GMT) :
> >> Ping?
>
> > Yes the upstream is working on a clean solution.
> > So I am waiting for the next release which should fix this problem.
>
> Did I understand correctly that this won't be fixed via a binnmu?
> If so, I suppose that this request could be closed.
>
Yes, IMO the code needs to be fixed to not look at kernel versions, and
I refuse to paper over that bug with a binNMU.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
