On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 11:43 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Nice catch, thanks. Can you suggest an alternative patch?
If the goal is that this should work on Python 3 as well then I'm afraid
not, at least not as far as this particular bug report is concerned. The
script is full of calls to
Just to clarify, I guess the bug-specific solution would be to revert
the commit referenced above, since it does nothing to get initdutils
running on Python 3 but only breaks things on Python 2.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Bad commit here:
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/lsb.git;a=commitdiff;h=f4ed7f08600d633c3daba9f494997f1c3aed
StringIO.StringIO and io.StringIO do not have identical API.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 17:25 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
If lsb-core is going to pull in default-mta as the preferred option, then
arguably lsb-invalid-mta shouldn't exist at all
I agree. None of the suggested solutions address the crontab issue, and
there may be other similar problems we
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 08:33 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
No, you aren't agreeing. I'm saying that *either* lsb-core should prefer
lsb-invalid-mta, *or* lsb-invalid-mta should not exist. lsb-invalid-mta,
without a Provides: mail-transport-agent, *does* satisfy the cron issue.
Okay, I
Hi,
BTW, if you feel strongly about this, I'd encourage you to file the
appropriate bugs and have this discussion over there. No one here needs
convincing, I think, that lsb-invalid-mta is a bad idea.
I do feel strongly about this, as the outcome of this discussion will
determine whether or
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 10:46 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Please note that the default-mta as shipped by Debian (exim4) in its
default configuration is not sending mails to the internet at all. If
your LSB-based assumption is that you can invoke sendmail to send mails
to anyone, then
On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 14:58 -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I don't like lsb-invalid-mta, but as mentioned in the thread leading up
to this bug, we agreed on it with the Ubuntu folks because it at least
preserves app expectations. It was the preferred alternative to
Ubuntu's planned move: just get
Didier, Jeff,
I think the summary is not the above statement, but that your _opinion_
is that lsb-invalid-mta does not fulfil the requirements of the LSB
specification. I don't agree, fwiw. Can you point to a specific LSB
requirement not fulfilled by lsb-invalid-mta, please?
Of course
Package: lsb-core
Version: 4.1+Debian8+deb7u1
Severity: important
Hi,
This bug report is a continuation of the following thread:
http://debian.2.n7.nabble.com/Questions-regarding-lsb-invalid-mta-td2980123.html
To summarize, lsb-invalid-mta does not fulfil the requirements of the LSB
Package: gcc
Version: 4:4.3.1-1
Why aren't the Debian kernels in the repositories compiled with a
version of GCC also available from the repositories? This is a problem
when compiling modules for a kernel which itself has been compiled with
a GCC version not immediately available for
11 matches
Mail list logo
