[Jaunty] glipper needs rebuild against python-2.6

[Bruno Lambert]

Binary package hint: glipper

when installing glipper on jaunty amd64, I've got the following error:

bruno@r405:~$ LANG=en_US sudo apt-get install glipper
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
  glipper: Depends: python (< 2.6) but 2.6.1-0ubuntu2 is to be installed
E: Broken packages
bruno@r405:~$

I have a system up to date as of today (03-03-2009)

[Craig Huffstetler (xq)]

Confirmed on 03-03-2009. Same error.

[Craig Huffstetler (xq)]

I'm also on Jaunty (Alpha 5). My system is completely up-to-date as of today. I am on 32-bit.

Could not mark all packages for installation or upgrade
glipper:
  Depends: python (<2.6) but 2.6.1-0ubuntu2 is to be installed

[rebegin (hgi)]

also confirmed on ubuntu jaunty 64bit.

[Savvas Radevic (medigeek)]

$ sudo apt-get install glipper
[...]
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
  glipper: Depends: python (< 2.6) but 2.6.1-0ubuntu3 is to be installed
E: Broken packages

$ apt-cache policy glipper
glipper:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 1.0-1ubuntu2
  Version table:
     1.0-1ubuntu2 0
        500 http://archive.ubuntu.com jaunty/universe Packages

To fix this, I think only a rebuild is required. :)
buildlog that matches the attached patch:
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23757734/buildlog_ubuntu-jaunty-amd64.glipper_1.0-1ubuntu3_FULLYBUILT.txt.gz

[Savvas Radevic (medigeek)]

darn I just noticed that it was assigned to someone else - sorry Andrew :(

[Simone Tolotti (simontol)]

@Savvas: I assigned the bug to Andrew because it seems to be the package maintainer. ;-) Maybe I was wrong doing this...

[Savvas Radevic (medigeek)]

2009/3/11 Simone Tolotti <email address hidden>:
> @Savvas: I assigned the bug to Andrew because it seems to be the package
> maintainer. ;-) Maybe I was wrong doing this...
>

Ah - don't know either, oh well. Sorry once again if it was a mistake
on my behalf. :)

[Andrew Starr-Bochicchio (andrewsomething)]

No, problem Savvas. Your right, this only needs a no change rebuild.

Simone, no I am not the maintainer. In fact most packages in Ubuntu don't have a specific maintainer, although sometimes there is a specific person who has an interest in a package. Either way, you should never assign a bug to someone else. First of all, it could cause the bug to be forgotten about. Others will look and see that it is assigned already and not bother to do anything. Secondly, it's just a bit presumptuous. Most of the developers working on Ubuntu (especially universe packages) are volunteers and having some one else "assign" you to do something can come off a bit rude. A better way to draw someone's attention would be to just subscribe them, but even this might annoy some people.

But "no harm, no foul", as we say over here.

Thanks both of you for helping to make Ubuntu better!

[Simone Tolotti (simontol)]

@Andrew: My aplogies.
I misunderstood what "assign bug" means.
I've thought it could be a way to recall your attention.
I'm sorry, I never meant to annoy you.

[Launch (invention)]

also confirmed on ubuntu jaunty 32 bit

[Alessio Treglia (quadrispro)]

glipper (1.0-1ubuntu3) jaunty; urgency=low

  * No-change rebuild to build with Python 2.6.