Summary: | net-mail/offlineimap-6.4.2 fails to build with python-2.5 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Ryan Hill (RETIRED) <rhill> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Thomas Kahle (RETIRED) <tomka> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | net-mail+disabled |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | 394307 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Ryan Hill (RETIRED)
2011-12-08 04:50:13 UTC
Thanks for the report. 2.5 is not supported anymore. Upstream claims that it should work with USE="-ssl", but I guess that's just outdated by a bump of imaplib. I restricted the python version. + 10 Dec 2011; Thomas Kahle <tomka@gentoo.org> offlineimap-6.4.2.ebuild: + Restrict to >=python-2.6 Unfortunately, setting PYTHON_DEPEND doesn't control which versions the package will be built with, only the versions that satisfy the dependency. You also need to add 2.5 to RESTRICT_PYTHON_ABIS. Yes, this is dumb. (In reply to comment #2) > Unfortunately, setting PYTHON_DEPEND doesn't control which versions the package > will be built with, only the versions that satisfy the dependency. You also > need to add 2.5 to RESTRICT_PYTHON_ABIS. Yes, this is dumb. OK, I did that for now... (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Unfortunately, setting PYTHON_DEPEND doesn't control which versions the package > > will be built with, only the versions that satisfy the dependency. You also > > need to add 2.5 to RESTRICT_PYTHON_ABIS. Yes, this is dumb. > > OK, I did that for now... This should probably be closed no? (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > Unfortunately, setting PYTHON_DEPEND doesn't control which versions the package > > > will be built with, only the versions that satisfy the dependency. You also > > > need to add 2.5 to RESTRICT_PYTHON_ABIS. Yes, this is dumb. > > > > OK, I did that for now... > > This should probably be closed no? Yes. |