On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 22:20, Matthias Klose <d...@debian.org> wrote: > On 10/23/20 1:07 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > > On 10/18/20 12:13 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > >> Python 3.9 as a supported Python3 version is now in unstable, and all > binNMUs > >> are done (thanks to Graham for the work). Bug reports should be all > filed for > >> all known problems [1], and the current state of the 3.9 addition can > be seen at > >> [2] (a few of the "bad" are false packages with b-d n python3-all-dev, > but not > >> building for 3.9, bug reports also filed). > >> > >> The major outstanding issue is the pandas stack, all other problems are > found in > >> leaf packages (leaf in the sense of that no other package for the 3.9 > addition > >> is blocked). > >> > >> Please help fixing the remaining issues! > >> > >> Matthias > >> > >> [1] > >> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=python3.9;users=debian-python@lists.debian.org > >> [2] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.9.html > > > > Going on with a test rebuild of 3.9 as default to file bug reports for > more > > packages. The first stage1 packages for 3.9 as default [1] can be found > at > > > > deb [trusted=yes] http://people.debian.org/~doko/tmp/python3.9 ./ > > deb [trusted=yes] http://people.debian.org/~ginggs/python3.9-repo ./ > > > > The first repo just having the python3-defaults packages from > experimental. The > > second repo of course will be outdated very soon ... Bug reports for > stage1 are > > filed, Graham is now running the test builds for stage2. > > > > The autopkg test results at [2] need checking. There's currently a > britney bug > > which marks things as bad, and only gets it right after a week. Plus > there's no > > way to select an "unrelated" package from unstable for a test, and have > it > > marked as a successful test. So basically you need to wait until all > the 3.9 > > related fixes migrate to testing for running a successful autopkg test. > > > > Matthias > > > > [1] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.9-default.html > > [2] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python3-defaults > > - python3-defaults now migrated to testing. The following packages were > removed from testing with fastened hints. > > numba > python-executing > python-fabio > python-icecream > python-molotov > supysonic > > - The Python related ftbfs issues from the last archive test rebuild > were user-tagged with 'python3.9', although I didn't make much > effort to determine if these are ftbfs seen for 3.9 only, or for > both 3.8 and 3.9. dh-python now supports building and testing for > all supported python version before bailing out in case of errors, > but this came too late for the test rebuild. > > issues for key packages (those with lots of dependencies) are: > > https://bugs.debian.org/973056 src:sphinx-tabs >
Fixed. > https://bugs.debian.org/973057 src:python-py > Fixed. > https://bugs.debian.org/973061 src:nototools > Pasted a trivial fix to the bug. I guess it could be NMUed (it's not a Python team package). > https://bugs.debian.org/973072 src:python-kubernetes > I patched the failures (see the bug) but then the build hangs for me. > https://bugs.debian.org/973087 src:python-fs > Fixed, but I forgot to put the Closes: #xxx in the changelog. > https://bugs.debian.org/973114 src:python-future > https://bugs.debian.org/973121 src:cairocffi > https://bugs.debian.org/973126 src:responses > https://bugs.debian.org/973134 src:python-webob > https://bugs.debian.org/973165 src:pyflakes > Fixed. > https://bugs.debian.org/973167 src:ufonormalizer > https://bugs.debian.org/973168 src:pylint > This looks confusing! Upstream is thinking about it but I'm not sure what their ETA is. > https://bugs.debian.org/973193 src:parso > https://bugs.debian.org/973195 src:python-asyncssh > https://bugs.debian.org/973239 src:python-fixtures > Upstream is thinking about this too. Cheers, mwh > For the other ftbfs, see [1]. > > Matthias > > [1] > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=python3.9;users=debian-python@lists.debian.org > >