Processed: Re: Bug#383958: lintian: python-script-but-no-python-dep error with python-support
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reassign 383958 python-support Bug#383958: lintian: python-script-but-no-python-dep error with python-support Bug reassigned from package `lintian' to `python-support'. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#383958: lintian: python-script-but-no-python-dep error with python-support
reassign 383958 python-support thanks Le dimanche 20 août 2006 à 17:30 -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : python-support is a package that, at least according to its long description, says that it provides a script that byte-compiles Python modules. Nothing in the description of the package says that it provides a Python interpreter. It happens to do so *now* because of its dependencies, but suppose there were some reason down the road why it might depend on some specific version of Python that didn't provide the /usr/bin/python interpreter or otherwise changes its functionality in some way. You are 100% right. I will change the script to add the python dependency even when there is a dependency on python-support. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Bug#383958: lintian: python-script-but-no-python-dep error with python-support
Package: lintian Version: 1.23.22 Severity: wishlist Lintian generates python-script-but-no-python-dep errors for binary packages depending on python-support (which depends on python). These dependencies are sufficient and are generated automatically by the dh_pysupport debhelper script. I asked on debian-python and they said this was a bug in lintian and not in python-support: http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2006/08/msg00098.html Thanks, Cameron Dale -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (990, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-1-amd64-k8 Locale: LANG=en_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Versions of packages lintian depends on: ii binutils 2.17-1 The GNU assembler, linker and bina ii diffstat 1.42-1 produces graph of changes introduc ii dpkg-dev 1.13.22 package building tools for Debian ii file 4.17-2 Determines file type using magic ii gettext 0.14.6-1GNU Internationalization utilities ii intltool-debian 0.35.0+20060710 Help i18n of RFC822 compliant conf ii libparse-debianchangelog 1.0-1 parse Debian changelogs and output ii man-db 2.4.3-3 The on-line manual pager ii perl [libdigest-md5-perl 5.8.8-6 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction lintian recommends no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#383958: lintian: python-script-but-no-python-dep error with python-support
Cameron Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Package: lintian Version: 1.23.22 Severity: wishlist Lintian generates python-script-but-no-python-dep errors for binary packages depending on python-support (which depends on python). These dependencies are sufficient and are generated automatically by the dh_pysupport debhelper script. I asked on debian-python and they said this was a bug in lintian and not in python-support: http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2006/08/msg00098.html I don't think I agree with this. python-support is a package that, at least according to its long description, says that it provides a script that byte-compiles Python modules. Nothing in the description of the package says that it provides a Python interpreter. It happens to do so *now* because of its dependencies, but suppose there were some reason down the road why it might depend on some specific version of Python that didn't provide the /usr/bin/python interpreter or otherwise changes its functionality in some way. Please don't rely on transitive dependencies. It's just a lurking bug waiting to happen. Your package contains a Python script which requires a Python interpreter. It should therefore depend on the package that provides the Python interpreter. Unless python-support is defined to provide a Python interpreter, it's not the correct package to depend on for that purpose. In general, for every interface, system service, or binary that your package uses, you should depend directly on the package that provides that interface, system service, or binary unless that package is essential, and not assume that some other dependency will provide it for you. Time and again, transitions in Debian have proven that such assumptions break over time and suddenly make packages RC-buggy. Yes, sometimes it's very unlikely that such a transition will happen, but I think it's better as a general rule to be sure. If it's really the intention that python-support will always provide a Python interpreter, that should be added to its long description so that there's documentation that this is an invariant and a promise that won't be changed later. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#383958: lintian: python-script-but-no-python-dep error with python-support
* Russ Allbery [Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:30:39 -0700]:
Please don't rely on transitive dependencies. It's just a lurking bug
waiting to happen. Your package contains a Python script which requires a
Python interpreter. It should therefore depend on the package that
provides the Python interpreter. Unless python-support is defined to
provide a Python interpreter, it's not the correct package to depend on
for that purpose.
In general, for every interface, system service, or binary that your
package uses, you should depend directly on the package that provides that
interface, system service, or binary unless that package is essential, and
not assume that some other dependency will provide it for you. Time and
again, transitions in Debian have proven that such assumptions break over
time and suddenly make packages RC-buggy. Yes, sometimes it's very
unlikely that such a transition will happen, but I think it's better as a
general rule to be sure.
JFTR, the bug is solely in python-support, and not in the package
lacking the dependency: although not advertised in the description
(which is user-oriented), python-support also takes care at build time
of generating a list of needed dependencies and placing it in the
${python:Depends} substvar.
With this, it's reasonable to expect for it to provide a correct list of
such dependencies, which should include python for packages shiping
scripts invoking /usr/bin/python.
Thanks,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Listening to: Mirafiori - Cinco minutos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#383958: lintian: python-script-but-no-python-dep error with python-support
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le lun 21 août 2006 02:30, Russ Allbery a écrit : If it's really the intention that python-support will always provide a Python interpreter, that should be added to its long description so that there's documentation that this is an invariant and a promise that won't be changed later. python-support is written in python (same is true for python-central) and will *always* depend upon 'python' Please see the rest of the message that I just wrote. Your response doesn't address my concerns. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Bug#383958: lintian: python-script-but-no-python-dep error with python-support
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: python-support is written in python (same is true for python-central) and will *always* depend upon 'python' Maybe some examples to illustrate will help. It may not be entirely clear why the above statement doesn't actually resolve the problem. Suppose that, due to some changes to how byte-compiling is done for Python 3.0, it's necessary to write the script in python-support to require Python 3.0. It therefore might depend on python3.0 instead of python, and hence wouldn't cause a /usr/bin/python to be installed. Suppose that with Python 4.0, the python-support script, still written in Python, makes sense to distribute as an executable compiled to native code and therefore depending on Python libraries but not needing an interpreter at all. You can decide that installing python-support is a way to get a /usr/bin/python interpreter, but there's no inherent reason why this should be the case. Furthermore, I don't think that's actually the right approach. It adds complexity to dependency analysis without really gaining anything. Let me turn this around: what advantage is there to the current approach? Why would you ever want a package containing a Python script to depend on python-support and *not* python? Is this just saving eight bytes in the Depends field, and if so, is that really worth it for, say, not being able to locate all packages that depend on Python by simply looking for packages that depend on Python (rather than having to also factor in packages that use transitive dependencies)? -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#383958: lintian: python-script-but-no-python-dep error with python-support
Le lun 21 août 2006 03:53, Russ Allbery a écrit : Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: python-support is written in python (same is true for python-central) and will *always* depend upon 'python' Maybe some examples to illustrate will help. It may not be entirely clear why the above statement doesn't actually resolve the problem. [snip] Let me turn this around: what advantage is there to the current approach? Why would you ever want a package containing a Python script to depend on python-support and *not* python? Is this just saving eight bytes in the Depends field, and if so, is that really worth it for, say, not being able to locate all packages that depend on Python by simply looking for packages that depend on Python (rather than having to also factor in packages that use transitive dependencies)? that's indeed a fair question, maybe python-support should not be too clever and let 'python' be explicitely listed, even if it's *currently* not needed. Also note that if versionned depends are needed (like a python (= X.Y)) it is obviously added, so that problem hits only arch:all packages that do not need a specific python version... Maybe Joss will have more insight about that. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpWW3ojXFls1.pgp Description: PGP signature
