Re: [Python-modules-team] numpy 1.6.1 into unstable?
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 19:30, Julian Taylor wrote: > 640940 [0] and 665998 should probably still be resolved in the upload to > unstable. you didn't seem to have addressed Jakub reply in 640940... > 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 ...or better you did for ubuntu but didn't communicate it back to Debian, not helping, sorry. Cheers, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAB4XWXxcuRdW181VhgheFvD+mj=6mxa5dqe-sz9x+mdfcoo...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: python3-dateutil
On 5 April 2012 11:38, Jakub Wilk wrote: > Indeed, adding --check-dirname-level=0 fixes the problem for me. I've added that, and checked that it still works for me. Thanks, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOvn4qiGDkeeNvH_n_z3hm61iC4nvV06smxEaR9Z6U=srcq...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [Python-modules-team] numpy 1.6.1 into unstable?
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 > 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
Re: py.test is not in debian anymore
Hi, On 4 April 2012 15:47, Simon Chopin wrote: > IMHO there is three alternatives: > * Provide the scripts for all Python versions available, py.test[-3] > pointing to the default Python version. It would mean that the > package would depend on python-all and python3-all because of the > shebang. I strongly dislike this one. I don't think this is so bad really. py.test is a development package, not a runtime dependency and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a python developer to install python[3]-all. Regards, Floris -- Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAAWk_DyuZhXbNkFTijzFGYR=GVmNEkyQXv=z8otv1htak2q...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [Python-modules-team] numpy 1.6.1 into unstable?
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 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, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAB4XWXx7N6r+hxopxy6w+h1DfTP=zovtjebbn07qcgylogt...@mail.gmail.com
