** Changed in: natty-backports
Status: Incomplete => Won't Fix
** Changed in: lucid-backports
Status: Incomplete => Won't Fix
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is subscribed to Lucid Backports.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bug
I'm closing the maverick-backports task on this bug due to Ubuntu 10.10
(Maverick Meerkat) no longer being supported.
It looks like you requested a backport to Ubuntu 10.04 (Lucid Lynx). Now
that Ubuntu 10.10 is no longer supported, it may be possible to backport
this package directly to Ubuntu 10
I reviewed all upstream changes in simplejson between 2.0.9 (the version
in Lucid) and 2.1.1 for potentially breaking changes:
- there was a new feature, object_pairs_hook, that added a fair amount of code.
This caused a regression that was caught before release:
http://code.google.com/p/simplej
Thanks for working on this, Evan!
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is the registrant for natty-backports.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/834361
Title:
Please backport tahoe-lafs (1.8.3-0ubuntu1) from oneiric
To manage notifications a
I've updated bug #811721 for Lucid and Maverick, and uploaded the new
pycryptopp version to both of them. They'll be subject to review by the
SRU team, and then will require verification as well.
Once that process has been finished and the foolscap backport has been
dealt with, I'll try relaxing t
Maverick has the following missing dependencies:
tahoe-lafs : Depends: python-foolscap (>= 0.6.1-3) but 0.5.1+dfsg-0ubuntu1 is
to be installed
Depends: python-pycryptopp (>= 0.5.29-1) but 0.5.17-1 is to be
installed
It does have python-simplejson, version 2.1.1-1.
--
You receiv
"> pycryptopp >= 0.5.20
Again, there seems to be a disagreement in the packaging. The package
depends on python-pycryptopp (>= 0.5.29) - any thoughts on why the
dependency is higher?"
As far as I know, the tahoe-lafs package need not depend on 0.5.29, that
just happened to be the version of pycry
This changeset released in simplejson 2.1:
http://code.google.com/p/simplejson/source/diff?spec=svn212&r=212&format=side&path=/trunk/simplejson/_speedups.c
, looks security-relevant.
(I have to say that the simplejson maintainers don't seem to be very
good at providing meaningful stand-alone commi
> It looks like the Debian maintainer at some point bumped the
simplejson dependency from (>= 1.4) to (>= 2.1.1). Zooko (or anyone), do
you have any idea why the dependency might have gotten bumped so much
higher than tahoe-lafs requires?
Well, ideally we would ask the Debian maintainers -- Bert A
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Let's look at the missing
dependencies one at a time.
> simplejson >= 1.4
It looks like the Debian maintainer at some point bumped the simplejson
dependency from (>= 1.4) to (>= 2.1.1). Zooko (or anyone), do you have
any idea why the dependency might have gotten
** Summary changed:
- Please backport tahoe-lafs
+ Please backport tahoe-lafs (1.8.2-3fakesync1) from oneiric
** Summary changed:
- Please backport tahoe-lafs (1.8.2-3fakesync1) from oneiric
+ Please backport tahoe-lafs (1.8.3-0ubuntu1) from oneiric
--
You received this bug notification becaus
I'm a developer of the upstream Tahoe-LAFS project. Our canonical
documentation of which versions of which dependencesi we require is this
file:
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-
lafs/browser/trunk/src/allmydata/_auto_deps.py?annotate=blame
Here is the version of that file from Tahoe-LAFS v1.9.0
Lucid test:
Apt-purged tahoe and dependencies OK.
Added ppa successfully and apt update'd.
When trying to install tahoe-lafs (1.8.3-0ubuntu1~lucid1~ppa1) apt-get
complains:
tahoe-lafs:
Depends: python-foolscap but will not be installed
Depends: python-simplejson (>=2.1.1) but will install 2.0.
I can test this for Maverick. There was a separate bug ticket for
Maverick (bug 834354) which I will mark as a duplicate.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is the registrant for natty-backports.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/834361
Titl
In order to ensure a safe upgrade path for users with the backport
installed, our policies will require us to additionally backport tahoe-
lafs to Maverick and Natty. I've gone ahead and opened bug tasks for
those releases.
Since tahoe-lafs has no reverse-dependencies, we need verification that
th
+1
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is subscribed to lucid-backports.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/834361
Title:
Please backport tahoe-lafs
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/lucid-backports/+b
Yes, please! This would be very good. Tahoe-LAFS has a strong policy of
backward compatibility and excellent quality control, so I would not
expect any compatibility problems or nasty surprises for Lucid users
upgrading from Tahoe-LAFS 1.6.1 to 1.8.2.
--
You received this bug notification because
17 matches
Mail list logo
