A bit nitpicking, but I hope you have noticed the (lack of) subject. An empty "Re:" feels really weird.
On 22/07/2024 21:06, Emmanuel Arias wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 12:58:49PM +0200, Drew Parsons wrote: >> On 2024-07-22 11:40, Alexandre Detiste wrote: >>> Hi Nilesh, >>> >>> I joined Astro team and took care of matplotlib rdeps there. >>> >>> I'm struggling with basemap... I don't understand how >>> this multi-package with it's 3 setup.py works. >>> It's the very last rdpeps that will block migration later on. >>> >>> I think it's the right time to upload to Unstable. >>> --- >>> >>> matplotlib build is failing right now too. >>> Salsa CI logs are truncated & useless. >>> >>> dh_sphinxdoc -O--buildsystem=pybuild >>> dh_sphinxdoc: error: >>> debian/python-matplotlib-doc/usr/share/doc/python-matplotlib-doc/html/search.html >>> does not load searchindex.js >>> make: *** [debian/rules:26: binary] Error 25 >>> dpkg-buildpackage: error: fakeroot debian/rules binary subprocess >>> returned exit status 2 >>> I: copying local configuration >>> E: Failed autobuilding of package >>> >>> Greetings >> >> >> Thanks Alexandre. Certainly I'll be happy to have matplotlib 3.8 (if not >> 3.9) in unstable, if we can live with kicking basemap out of testing. >> scipy-docs will use matplotlib-docs. >> >> The new basemap has pushed setup.py down into one of the subdirs. I've >> haven't looked into it deeply, but I'm wondering if it might work just >> setting appropriate PYBUILD_* variables in debian to point sourcedir at the >> new subdir containing setup.py? i.e. activating pybuild's --dir option. Not >> sure if that would mean a PYBUILD_DIR variable or something else. Depends on >> whether we can ignore the other new subdirs. I haven't checked for >> correspondence between the new and the old basemap source. > Yes, new upstream release is different, I plan work on it after DebConf. > But, do we need remove basemap from testing? -- Sdrager, Blair Noctis
pgpQnnxHVmEZO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
