On 11-08-06 at 12:38pm, A. Costa wrote: > On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:23:20 +0200 > Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > > > Closing *again* as a non-bug. > > I follow, but here's my 2 cents from userland... > > If a 'python2.3' package existed in the current Debian distros, then > this bug could be moved to that package. No 'python2.3' package > currently exists in Debian. > > Must it therefore follow, (as has been argued), that there is no > install bug? At least two users have been bitten, and have registered > their doubts. > > Bug #630787 seems to be a systemic Debian meta bug, where incomplete > or inaccurate metadata from an unmaintained "ex-package" _breaks_ the > install for a current package update. From userland it's hard to see > why such breakage should ever be allowed. > > If such a 'ghostly influence' meta bug already exists, then #630787 > should be merged with it. If such a meta bug does not exist, then > #630787 should be moved and renamed to the appropriate meta package. > > Otherwise we can expect that future maintainers will needlessly be > distracted by users with similarly misdirected bug reports, perhaps > forever...
In my opinion... a) Failure to install a Debian package on a system "contaminated" by non-Debian packages is not a Debian bug but a broken local system. b) Packages dropped before oldstable are "non-Debian" in the context of a). I therefore see no reason to elevate this particular to be a general issue for Debian. I do find it reasonable to file _another_ bug (of severity "wishlist") against "python" to suggest having it conflict against versions of Python no longer supported by Debian. I do not want to file such bug myself, though. I also find it reasonable to file _another_ bug against current Python releases to ensure that they do not trigger (re)compilation of modules when the python version is removed but not purged (if that is the real problem experienced here). This obviously won't solve the experienced issue for that old obsolete version of Python but might help avoid similar issues in the future. I also find it reasonable to file _another_ bug against debian-release to suggest emphasizing in release notes that all non-installed packages be purged as a finishing step of an upgrade (again assuming the actual issue experienced here was one of non-purged rather than non-removed Python package). Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature