Hi Rebecca,
Am Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:10:46PM + schrieb Rebecca N. Palmer:
> Remaining blockers for testing migration:
> - python-ulmo #1044057: has a patch, please upload
I've uploaded this yesterday.
> - pydevd #1063274: unclear whether my patch breaks something else, please
> leave
Remaining blockers for testing migration:
- python-ulmo #1044057: has a patch, please upload
- pydevd #1063274: unclear whether my patch breaks something else,
please leave alone for now
Status unclear:
- python-xarray: autopkgtest has failed 3 times, but all 3 are
(different) failures that
Processing control commands:
> block -1 by 1063274
Bug #1043240 [python3-pandas] transition: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1
1043240 was blocked by: 1044075 1044052 1053943 1053939 1044066 1053942 1053941
1044053 1043093 1044056 1044063 1044074 1053946 1044078 1044070 1044079 1044061
1044077 1044071 1044067
Control: block -1 by 1063274
Thank you for uploading those fixes.
Note to self: pandas will need another upload, to remove the numba B-D
and skip those tests (because numba is not in testing), and do something
about 'ignoredtests' being slow enough to time out in i386 and arm64.
--
seaborn has now been fixed. I intend to look at python-altair later.
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Hi Rebecca,
Am Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 08:05:35AM + schrieb Rebecca N. Palmer:
> I intend to upload pandas 2.x to unstable soon. These packages have a patch
> in their bug - please upload them (I'm a DM, I can't do that), or if you
> think this patch won't work or isn't a good idea, tell me
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 08:05:35AM +, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> In particular, I'd like the seaborn fix uploaded before pandas, so I can set
> Breaks for it. (The pandas documentation build-depends on seaborn.)
for dials it seems that the CI works with pandas 2.1 from experimental.
https://ci.debian.net/packages/d/dials/unstable/amd64/41962612/#S4
- Le 30 Jan 24, à 9:05, Rebecca N. Palmer rebecca_pal...@zoho.com a écrit :
> I intend to upload pandas 2.x to unstable soon. These packages have a
>
I intend to upload pandas 2.x to unstable soon. These packages have a
patch in their bug - please upload them (I'm a DM, I can't do that), or
if you think this patch won't work or isn't a good idea, tell me why:
dials influxdb-python python-altair python-feather-format seaborn tqdm
In
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 08:43:03AM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 at 14:38, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > We're nearly there (the transition page says it's 99% done), and when
> > this transition is complete, then python3-defaults 3.11.6+ will be
> > able to migrate to
Hi
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 at 14:38, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> We're nearly there (the transition page says it's 99% done), and when
> this transition is complete, then python3-defaults 3.11.6+ will be
> able to migrate to testing.
python3-defaults/3.11.6-1 with Python 3.12 as a supported version is
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 08:50:55PM +, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> On 22/01/2024 11:51, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Please could we wait until the "Python 3.12 is a supported version"
> > transition is completed?
>
> How are you defining that? python3-defaults 3.11.6+ in testing? (I was
>
On 22/01/2024 11:51, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Please could we wait until the "Python 3.12 is a supported version"
transition is completed?
How are you defining that? python3-defaults 3.11.6+ in testing? (I was
previously told 3.12-supporting pandas and numpy in testing, which has
happened. I
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 03:29:21PM +, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> Control: severity 1053943 1053939 1053942 1044053 1044056 serious
> Control: severity 1044074 1053946 1044078 1044079 1044077 serious
> Control: severity 1044071 1044067 1044068 1044055 1044060 serious
> Control: severity 1044072
Hi, how to remove myself from these lists?
Thank you
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 at 18:30, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Rebecca,
>
> Am Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 03:29:21PM + schrieb Rebecca N. Palmer:
> >
> > Hence, doing this transition now would involve breaking some reverse
> > dependencies with no
Hi Rebecca,
Am Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 03:29:21PM + schrieb Rebecca N. Palmer:
>
> Hence, doing this transition now would involve breaking some reverse
> dependencies with no known fix, but given the number of packages involved,
> trying to wait until they're all fixed is rather likely to
Control: severity 1053943 1053939 1053942 1044053 1044056 serious
Control: severity 1044074 1053946 1044078 1044079 1044077 serious
Control: severity 1044071 1044067 1044068 1044055 1044060 serious
Control: severity 1044072 1044073 1044064 1053945 1044054 serious
Control: severity 1044076 1053940
On 10/12/2023 20:16, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> [...]I'd be in favour of doing the pandas
> transition now, which will allow Cython 3.0 to move into unstable.
Cython 3 is already in unstable; pandas is currently using cython-legacy.
And yes, my list of packages broken by pandas 2.x is those
On 11.12.23 08:12, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 10.12.23 14:06, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
Is this an acceptable amount of breakage or should we continue to
wait? Bear in mind that if we wait too long, we may be forced into it
by some transition further up the stack (e.g. a future Python or
numpy)
On 12/11/23 08:12, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 10.12.23 14:06, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
I'd like to move forward with the pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 transition
reasonably soon.
Given that pandas 2.x is *not* required for Python 3.12 (but is
required for Cython 3.0), should we wait for the Python 3.12
On 10.12.23 14:06, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
I'd like to move forward with the pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 transition
reasonably soon.
Given that pandas 2.x is *not* required for Python 3.12 (but is required
for Cython 3.0), should we wait for the Python 3.12 transition to be
done first?
These are
On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 01:06:01PM +, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> I'd like to move forward with the pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 transition reasonably
> soon.
>
> Given that pandas 2.x is *not* required for Python 3.12 (but is required for
> Cython 3.0), should we wait for the Python 3.12 transition to
I'd like to move forward with the pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 transition
reasonably soon.
Given that pandas 2.x is *not* required for Python 3.12 (but is required
for Cython 3.0), should we wait for the Python 3.12 transition to be
done first?
These are broken by pandas 2.x and have a possible (but
astropy isn't actually a regression (i.e. it's probably _a_ bug, but
unrelated to pandas 2.x), and python-hypothesis appears to be fixed (by
upstream, in 6.83.1). I have filed individual bugs for the others.
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
Control: retitle -1 transition: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1
pandas 2.1 is now in experimental. In addition to the above, it breaks
these packages:
astropy dask patsy pymatgen python-cooler python-geopandas q2-demux
q2-taxa q2-types seaborn tqdm
and maybe python-hypothesis.
(python-pauvre and sunpy
25 matches
Mail list logo
