Ubuntu
rawdog package

Rawdog isn't runnable (incompatibilities with python 2.6)

Bug #350920 reported by Crushyerbones
6
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
rawdog (Ubuntu)
Confirmed
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: rawdog

~$ rawdog
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/rawdog", line 20, in <module>
    from rawdoglib.rawdog import main
  File "/var/lib/python-support/python2.6/rawdoglib/rawdog.py", line 590
    as = a.split("=", 1)
     ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

Self explanatory really. If you replace all "as" to "bar" in "rawdog.py", it fixes ONE of many problems, including not opening again due to not having a .rawdog folder at home, and again if you don't have a config file (which you won't).

LATEST PACKAGE TESTED:
rawdog 2.11-1

See original description
Revision history for this message
Crushyerbones (crushyerbones) wrote :
Revision history for this message
Sergey Romanov (sml-uni) wrote :

Your rawdog.py still emits warning about use of deprecated module sha instead of hashlib. Here is my take on it.

Revision history for this message
Sergey Romanov (sml-uni) wrote :

I've just checked with the upstream. Both problems are already fixed in rawdog-2.12. The best approach, IMHO, would be to backport these two patches from upstream:

Use hashlib rather than sha where available.
http://offog.org/darcs/rawdog/_darcs/patches/20090130092734-cee84-6636ebd6512d04e16fd4b578514c06a4cbe18e5d.gz

"as" is now a reserved word in Python 2.6.
http://offog.org/darcs/rawdog/_darcs/patches/20090130090320-cee84-fd0e5d6df8b2ab05286fbfae7beda17a296475d1.gz

Sergey Romanov (sml-uni)
tags: added: cherry-pick jaunty
Sergey Romanov (sml-uni)
description: updated
summary: - Rawdog isn't runnable (syntax error and more)
+ Rawdog isn't runnable (incompatibilities with python 2.6)
Changed in rawdog (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
Sergey Romanov (sml-uni)
tags: added: python2.6
Revision history for this message
Sergey Romanov (sml-uni) wrote : Upstream patches

I've extracted the relevant upstream patches from the darcs repository
as unified diffs. 'as.patch' applies cleanly against rawdog 2.11-1. To
apply 'hashlib.patch' use 'patch -F3'.

Revision history for this message
Sergey Romanov (sml-uni) wrote :

Sorry, there was a typo in the upstream patch 'as.patch'. Use the patch from this comment instead. Or apply the upstream patch
http://offog.org/darcs/rawdog/_darcs/patches/20090130100216-cee84-267df61dcfdf2650d1b06bbf2632178f48ab8f5c.gz
on top of the 'as.patch' from my previous comment.

Revision history for this message
Brian Murray (brian-murray) wrote :

I've tried to create an updated version of the package using the as.patch only however I still get the following error:

No /home/bdmurray/.rawdog directory

I didn't want to incorporate the hashlib.patch as it just resolves a warning and we are quite close to the final release of Jaunty.

Is there some other patch I'm missing?

Revision history for this message
Sergey Romanov (sml-uni) wrote :

> No /home/bdmurray/.rawdog directory

I'm not sure this is a bug.

From /usr/share/doc/README.Debian:
"In order to use rawdog, you must create a configuration file named ~/.rawdog/config"

Revision history for this message
Sergey Romanov (sml-uni) wrote :

rawdog in karmic was recently auto-synced with Debian:
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/karmic/+source/rawdog/2.12.dfsg.1-1

The new version from Debian fixes this bug in karmic as for incompatibilities with python 2.6. As previously said, I'm not sure, we should consider the lack of a working config file to be a bug. At very least, it's no regression: all versions of rawdog in Debian I used before, also came without working config file out of the box.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.
Subscribing...

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.