Dear Sandro, On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:00:22PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > I beg to disagree with your reasoning with regard to this paricular > > bug. In my opinion, this bug _has_ been fixed, and the package is now > > buildable with Python 2.6. What you refer to is the fact that the > > package would no longer build in pre-testing environments, and is > > relevant only for backporting. In my opinion, that is a _new_ bug, and > > should not block the Python 2.6 transition. > > This fix to work needs a precise minimum version of python > interpreter, that wasn't set in b-d at the time of the upload. That > said, the fix is only partial, and so the bug is not closed yet, IMO.
Makes sense, but, being pedantic, I still won't agree fully... (but read further.) > > Do you agree to this reasoning? If you do, could you please clone this > > bug (or file a new one), use a lower for that severity, and close the > > current one? Or feel free to let me know why you disagree. > > Feel free to do what you feel it's best :) I don't care that much if a > new bug or this one will be used to fix the problem in the package. In > any case, the py2.6 adaptation fix is only partial, and it's not > guaranteed to work. > > Of course, the maintainer needs just a couple of minutes to make it > right, so I HOPE to see him stepping in and do the right changes (all > of them), instead of us two discuss about cloning or so. I agree that this made a lot of sense. But for the other bugs as well, lots of them don't have the version bumped. For them, I'd request you to please file fresh bugs. Would you be agreeable to that? Thanks for the patient response. Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
