_imagingcms.so missing in python-imaging

Bug #622388 reported by Paul Barendregt
16
This bug affects 2 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
python-imaging (Debian)
Fix Released
Unknown
python-imaging (Ubuntu)
Fix Released
Undecided
Unassigned
Lucid
Fix Released
High
Olivier Berten

Bug Description

Binary package hint: python-imaging

lucid

python_imaging 1.1.7-1

starting a python script:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "cmstest.py", line 4, in <module>
    from PIL import ImageCms
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/PIL/ImageCms.py", line 83, in <module>
    import _imagingcms
ImportError: No module named _imagingcms

ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.04
Package: python-imaging 1.1.7-1
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.32-24.41-generic 2.6.32.15+drm33.5
Uname: Linux 2.6.32-24-generic i686
NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia
Architecture: i386
Date: Sun Aug 22 20:38:51 2010
ProcEnviron:
 LANG=en_US.utf8
 SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: python-imaging

Revision history for this message
Paul Barendregt (paulbarendregt) wrote :
Revision history for this message
Olivier Berten (olivier-berten) wrote :

Fixed in Debian in version 1.1.7-2

Revision history for this message
StefanPotyra (sistpoty) wrote :

ACK

Changed in python-imaging (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Matthias Klose (doko) wrote :

synced from unstable

Changed in python-imaging (Ubuntu):
status: Confirmed → Fix Released
Revision history for this message
Olivier Berten (olivier-berten) wrote :

Still needs to be fixed in lucid (LTS...) : package 1.1.7-2 depends on later versions of python and libjpeg62

Revision history for this message
Matthias Klose (doko) wrote : Re: [Bug 622388] Re: _imagingcms.so missing in python-imaging

On 24.09.2010 18:46, Olivier Berten wrote:
> Still needs to be fixed in lucid (LTS...) : package 1.1.7-2 depends on
> later versions of python and libjpeg62

could you prepare and test an updated package and attach the debdiff?

Revision history for this message
Olivier Berten (olivier-berten) wrote :

First time I'm doing this... followed https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Howtos/Debdiff

Hopefully I did it right ;-) At least it works locally...

Revision history for this message
Scott Kitterman (kitterman) wrote :

That looks like a good debdiff of the changes we'd need from -2 to go into Lucid (and is a proper debdiff), however what we need for a lucid upload is a debdiff of the changes from what's in lucid to what's needed.

For a lucid upload, the proper revision would be 1.1.7-1ubuntu0.1 and the upload target would be lucid propose. If you can change those and then debdiff 1.1.7-1 to your new package, I'll see about getting it uploaded.

Changed in python-imaging (Ubuntu Lucid):
status: New → In Progress
assignee: nobody → Olivier Berten (olivier-berten)
milestone: none → ubuntu-10.04.2
importance: Undecided → High
Revision history for this message
Scott Kitterman (kitterman) wrote :

Sorry, lucid-proposed for the upload target.

Revision history for this message
Olivier Berten (olivier-berten) wrote :

Well, it's even shorter ;-)

Changed in python-imaging (Ubuntu Lucid):
status: In Progress → Fix Committed
Revision history for this message
Scott Kitterman (kitterman) wrote :

Uploaded for lucid-proposed. The ubuntu-sru team will review and approve it. Then packages will be built for testing. Thank you for your contribution to Ubuntu.

Revision history for this message
Scott Kitterman (kitterman) wrote :

I just reuploaded it because I found the changelog entry wasn't quite right.

Revision history for this message
Martin Pitt (pitti) wrote : Please test proposed package

Accepted python-imaging into lucid-proposed, the package will build now and be available in a few hours. Please test and give feedback here. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how to enable and use -proposed. Thank you in advance!

tags: added: verification-needed
Revision history for this message
Jean-Baptiste Lallement (jibel) wrote :

Only the version for amd64 is available in -proposed the build for i386 is awaiting approval in NEW queue.

Revision history for this message
Scott Kitterman (kitterman) wrote : Re: [Bug 622388] Re: _imagingcms.so missing in python-imaging

Thanks for pointing that out. It's not clear to me why it landed there, so
I'm going to leave it for the moment while that's investigated and then I'll
accept it after the question is resolved.

Revision history for this message
Scott Kitterman (kitterman) wrote :

On Friday, October 01, 2010 09:24:25 am you wrote:
> Only the version for amd64 is available in -proposed the build for i386
> is awaiting approval in NEW queue.

It's confirmed that it hit NEW due to a Launchpad bug and will have to stay
there for a few days until they can repair the database. Thanks again for
pointing it out.

Revision history for this message
Scott Kitterman (kitterman) wrote :

Actually it turned out not to be a problem to go ahead an accept it. It
should hit the archive in about an hour.

Revision history for this message
Jean-Baptiste Lallement (jibel) wrote :

SRU verification for Lucid:
I have reproduced the problem with python-imaging 1.1.7-1 in lucid and have verified that the version of python-imaging 1.1.7-1ubuntu0.1 in -proposed fixes the issue. I've run the PIL testsuite with sucess.

Marking as verification-done

tags: added: verification-done
removed: verification-needed
Revision history for this message
Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote :

This bug was fixed in the package python-imaging - 1.1.7-1ubuntu0.1

---------------
python-imaging (1.1.7-1ubuntu0.1) lucid-proposed; urgency=low

  * Build-depend on liblcms1-dev. (LP: #622388)
 -- <email address hidden> (Olivier Berten (selapa.net)) Sat, 25 Sep 2010 19:54:32 +0200

Changed in python-imaging (Ubuntu Lucid):
status: Fix Committed → Fix Released
Changed in python-imaging (Debian):
status: Unknown → Fix Released
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

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