Comment 12 for bug 2038648
Revision history for this message
| Mauricio Faria de Oliveira (mfo) wrote | #12 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
bbfa235
demo site
(Get the code!)
Hi Nikhil,
Thanks for checking!
> I noted "The optional X-Python3-Version field specifies the versions of Python 3 supported. ", but I am not sure if this would apply for the compilation in the postinst.
The version of the package providing py3compile at postinst time should be the key factor, IIUIC?
> Does adding python3 (>= 3.6.5-3) to Depends sound like a reasonable solution?
IMHO we first should understand the issue/criteria for reproducing the problem;
so I'd wait for Branimir to reply, or we try proactively to reproduce the issue,
e.g., should pro not be enabled? (there are no 'esm' versions in attached logs.)
When that is clear, we should be in a better position to assess the impact/pros/cons of different approaches to address it.
And as Robie mentioned in comment #3, if we change that, we should be clear on the changes/impacts to do-release-upgrade
(that's why I suggested in our chat to run do-release-upgrade before/after such a change, and compare the logs to look for differences, and also understand the steps done by do-release-ugprade in general w.r.t. python, if any).