[Python-modules-team] Bug#605365: Bug#605365: Bug#605365: pyopenssl: Use dh_python2 instead of dh_pysupport

Scott Kitterman scott at kitterman.com
Mon Nov 29 16:14:04 UTC 2010

On Monday, November 29, 2010 09:42:55 am Daniel Holbach wrote:
> On 29.11.2010 15:17, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> >>  * Rebuild with Python2.7.
> > 
> > In Debian we would have scheduled a binNMU and get done with it, so
> > there's nothing in the package to be done.
> In Ubuntu we don't have binNMUs. We need to do source uploads for rebuilds.
Yes, but a simple no change rebuild (0.10-1build1) would have been sufficient in 
this case and accomplished what a binNMU in Debian would have done.

> >>  * debian/rules: change dh_pysupport to dh_python2.
> >>  * debian/control: Removed python-support from Build-Depends.
> > 
> > what's the point of this change?
> The way I understood
> http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-python@lists.debian.org/msg06566.html
> was that the idea was to move away from dh_pysupport in favour of
> dh_python2.
> As pyopenssl needed a rebuild in Ubuntu in order to give us OpenSSL for
> 2.7 (I needed it for a papyon build), I thought I'd make the change in
> the same upload and forward the changes to you.

In general, this is the plan, but it's really up to package maintainers to 
decide when and if to make the move.

> >> We thought you might be interested in doing the same.
> > 
> > "we" as in? why not discussing it with us BEFORE apply a useless diff
> > diverging from debian?
> "we" as in the default piece of text that "submittodebian" provides.
> I'm not sure you intended it this way, but your answer comes across as
> quite a bit agitated. Please take my word for it that I only had the
> best intentions.
> As I said: to me it looked like a straight-forward thing to get things
> in the Ubuntu archive into a build-able state again. I'm sorry if I
> misunderstood things. (I still don't understand what exactly what about
> my change was wrong.)


I'm sure you were just trying to do the right thing by the change and by 
forwarding it to Debian, but I think it is inappropriate to make fundamental 
changes in a package build system without coordinating with Debian in advance 
and I don't understand why you did it in this case?  It was completely 
unnecessary to solve the problem you were dealing with.

Scott K
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/python-modules-team/attachments/20101129/2f83c083/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Python-modules-team mailing list