On 04/10/2012 10:56 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > Hello Yaroslav, > such questions are better asked on debian-python: few people reads the > pkging ml (cc added). > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 22:02, Yaroslav Halchenko <deb...@onerussian.com> > wrote: >> sorry if that is obvious from somewhere but I wondered -- what are the >> showstoppers preventing numpy 1.6.1 migration from noone-sees >> experimental to shiny and bleeding edge unstable? >> >> 1:1.5.1-4 is in both unstable and testing so I guess there is no other >> transition cooking and I thought it would be a good time to prepare for >> upcoming freeze assuring that dependent packages are in good shape... ? > > I think it's time to move it to unstable, yes; the numpy transition > (#658289) was closed some days ago, so we're clear to go. > > I planned to ask yesterday Jakub for support/opinion in the > transition, but didn't see him in IRC, adding CC now: Jakub, what do > you think about uploading new Numpy to unstable? > > There is (to my knowledge) one bug 659403 (nipy) that would become RC, > while 659409 (veusz) is fixed but not yet migrated into testing due to > RC bug. > > Given the work done by Jakub, this new numpy shouldn't generated a > transition per se (it just bump the API version, not the ABI, which > most of the packages use) so it would be the first smooth transition: > let's see how it goes :) > > Cheers,
640940 [0] and 665998 should probably still be resolved in the upload to unstable. ftw. numpy 1.6 has been uploaded in ubuntu precise three weeks ago and the world did not fall apart yet. I also expect a smooth transition thanks to the excellent preparation by you and jakub. [0] crappy patch for it: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/precise/python-numpy/precise/view/head:/debian/patches/search-multiarch-paths.patch
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
