The click project does not build on Precise

[Zoltan Balogh]

The click project build depends on python3 (>= 3.3) and python3-debian. These packages are not available on a default Precise installation.

The click packaging feature should be available from the Ubuntu SDK on Precise too.

[Zoltan Balogh (bzoltan)]

With
  $ bzr branch lp:python-debian
  $ cd python-debian
  $ bzr bd
I could produce the python3-debian package. I wonder if this package is available from a source.

The python3 has LP project (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python3.3) for Q/R/S but for Precise there is only build from doko's PPA (https://launchpad.net/~doko/+archive/ppa)

[Colin Watson (cjwatson)]

I'd previously been instructed that I didn't need to care about precise ...

[Colin Watson (cjwatson)]

Well, this is a bit of a change of plan, but it does make some sense. I should be able to restore Python 3.2 compatibility, probably by selectively reverting bits of r30. However, I would prefer not to mangle the packaging to use python-debian (the Python 2 version); it would be difficult to handle that within a single branch. Would it be acceptable to provide python3-debian in a PPA, and if so which one?

[Zoltan Balogh (bzoltan)]

Providing the python3-debian in the SDK PPA is a perfect solution. As the SDK PPA could be the staging home of the Precise packages from the Click project.

[Colin Watson (cjwatson)]

Fixed in r125. Still need to put together a PPA build of python3-debian.

[Colin Watson (cjwatson)]

https://launchpad.net/~cjwatson/+archive/backports has a suitable source package of python-debian now, and should have binary packages including python3-debian in an hour or so. I suggest copying it from there to the SDK PPA using https://launchpad.net/~cjwatson/+archive/backports/+copy-packages (for efficiency, wait until my binaries have built and then "Copy existing binaries").

[Zoltan Balogh (bzoltan)]

The click package depends on python3 with at least 3.3 version, but in Precise the available version is 3.2.

The backport build is good, but it is only for i386 and we need amd64 and armhf too.

[Zoltan Balogh (bzoltan)]

I have copied the binary package to the SDK Release PPA. After that I realized that we need armhf and amd64 builds too. It is not possible to delete the copied package from the SDK Release PPA and copy the source packages there to force rebuild in the SDK Release PPA.

I have two options :) (a) fetch this source package, bump the version and dput it to the SDK Release PPA and (b) to wait for Colin to release the new binary package on Monday to be effectlively usable on Tuesday.

Choosing (a) would raise yet again eyebrows for using resources in a sub-optimal way, but choosing (b) would cause me days of delay.

[Zoltan Balogh (bzoltan)]

Sorry, ignore my comment on python3. I see that the click project build depends now on python3 (>= 3.2)

[Colin Watson (cjwatson)]

No, you don't need separate armhf and amd64 builds. python-debian and python3-debian are Architecture: all, so a single build does for all architectures.

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

This bug was fixed in the package click - 0.1.4

---------------
click (0.1.4) saucy; urgency=low

  * Add support for per-user package registration.
  * Move install log file from $root/.click.log to $root/.click/log.
  * Add an autotools-based build system for our C components.
  * Initial version of a PackageKit plugin, in a new packagekit-plugin-click
    package; still experimental.
  * Restore compatibility with Python 3.2 (LP: #1200670).
  * Adjust tests to pass with mock 0.7.2 (as in Ubuntu 12.04 LTS).
  * Make the default root directory a configure option.
  * Add a simple "click list" command.
 -- Colin Watson <email address hidden> Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:55:48 +0100