Bug#394181: mailman: Package is shipping .pyc files
Package: mailman Version: 1:2.1.9-2 Severity: serious Justification: python policy 3.1.1 This package is shipping .pyc files for the private module in /var/lib/mailman/pythonlib/email in violation of the new python policy. The module should be installed to /usr/share/mailman After the move, adding email path to module to the dh_pysupport call should fix the problem. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: [Pkg-mailman-hackers] Bug#394181: mailman: Package is shipping .pyc files
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: severity 394181 normal Bug#394181: mailman: Package is shipping .pyc files Severity set to `normal' from `serious' 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#394181: [Pkg-mailman-hackers] Bug#394181: mailman: Package is shipping .pyc files
severity 394181 normal thanks Hello Luis, This package is shipping .pyc files for the private module in /var/lib/mailman/pythonlib/email in violation of the new python policy. The module should be installed to /usr/share/mailman After the move, adding email path to module to the dh_pysupport call should fix the problem. Thank you for your report. I'll surely check it out. However, I'm downgrading the severity of this bug. I've taken a look at the justification you reference, and that article mentions only a should. Apart from the formal argument, I do not believe that this violation makes the package in any way unsuitable for release. Thijs signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#394181: [Pkg-mailman-hackers] Bug#394181: mailman: Package is shipping .pyc files
On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 13:08 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: However, I'm downgrading the severity of this bug. I've taken a look at the justification you reference, and that article mentions only a should. Apart from the formal argument, I do not believe that this violation makes the package in any way unsuitable for release. The submitter's email bounces, but if you read this: I'm of course open to arguments why this should be release critical. Thijs signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part