Am Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 05:45:58PM +0100 schrieb Drew Parsons:
> > Any solution for this one?
>
> Probably just needs updating to the latest release. They fixed some things.
Latest release is building in my local git. I'll report about issues
if I might meet some. Otherwise I'll also upload t
On 2023-01-26 16:56, Andreas Tille wrote:
Am Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:51:25PM +0100 schrieb Drew Parsons:
Thanks Andrea. armel has revealed which tests it needs skipped, so
I'll
push scipy 1.10 to unstable after scipy 1.8.1-22 is done migrating to
testing
I just notice that bug #1029701 of
Am Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:51:25PM +0100 schrieb Drew Parsons:
> On 2023-01-26 16:46, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > I've fixed all those Debian Med related issues in testing where you
> > filed
> > bug reports for. Seems from my point of view the upload of 1.10 is
> > fine.
> >
> > I've also pushed d/
Am Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:51:25PM +0100 schrieb Drew Parsons:
>
> Thanks Andrea. armel has revealed which tests it needs skipped, so I'll
> push scipy 1.10 to unstable after scipy 1.8.1-22 is done migrating to
> testing
Thanks a lot for all your work on this
Andreas.
--
http://fam-til
On 2023-01-26 16:46, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi Drew,
Am Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 01:46:18PM +0100 schrieb Drew Parsons:
> for the release architectures with autopkgtests, so expect results for
> more architectures to appear over the next few hours.
> [1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?experimental
Hi Drew,
Am Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 01:46:18PM +0100 schrieb Drew Parsons:
> > for the release architectures with autopkgtests, so expect results for
> > more architectures to appear over the next few hours.
> > [1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?experimental=1&package=scipy
>
> Ok, if you're hap
On 2023-01-26 14:32, Graham Inggs wrote:
I'll try to wait for scipy's own tests (armel, riscv64) before
uploading
to unstable.
riscv64 is not a release architecture (yet) and the hardware is still
a little slow, so it is not enabled for experimental pseudo excuses.
True. armel is the main
Hi Drew
On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 14:46, Drew Parsons wrote:
> Ok, if you're happy with those regressions then I'm happy. In any case,
> I've filed bug reports against them.
Great, thank you!
> I'll try to wait for scipy's own tests (armel, riscv64) before uploading
> to unstable.
riscv64 is not
On 2023-01-26 13:35, Graham Inggs wrote:
Hi Drew, Andreas
...
scipy/1.8.1-22 and numpy/1:1.24.1-2 have just migrated to testing, so
please go ahead with uploading scipy 1.10 to unstable when you're
ready.
...
The experimental pseudo excuses for scipy 1.10.0-1exp6 [1] look good
to me, only 12
Hi Drew, Andreas
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 17:34, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> Am Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 04:29:59PM +0100 schrieb Drew Parsons:
> > heh yeah, I was just replying about that :)
>
> So at least I was beating you in writing an e-mail! :-P
>
> > Are we confident on bringing scipy 1.10 to the n
Am Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 04:29:59PM +0100 schrieb Drew Parsons:
> heh yeah, I was just replying about that :)
So at least I was beating you in writing an e-mail! :-P
> Are we confident on bringing scipy 1.10 to the new stable?
In any case we should probably follow Graham's advise to let things
m
On 2023-01-25 16:25, Andreas Tille wrote:
Am Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 04:23:58PM +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille:
I'm just building an according package locally and will hopefully
upload
soon.
... but Drew Parsons seems to have beaten me. ;-)
Thanks also to Drew
Andreas.
heh yeah, I was just
Am Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 04:23:58PM +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> I'm just building an according package locally and will hopefully upload
> soon.
... but Drew Parsons seems to have beaten me. ;-)
Thanks also to Drew
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Hi Graham,
Am Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 03:09:54PM +0200 schrieb Graham Inggs:
> Please do fix #1029550 in 1.8.1 in testing before uploading 1.10.0 to
> unstable. It is one of the last blockers for NumPy.
I'm just building an according package locally and will hopefully upload
soon.
Thanks a lot fo
Hi Drew
Please do fix #1029550 in 1.8.1 in testing before uploading 1.10.0 to
unstable. It is one of the last blockers for NumPy.
Regards
Graham
Hi Rebecca
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 23:48, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> Given that the transition freeze was on 2023-01-12, it's too late to
> move to scipy 1.10 if that's likely to cause significant breakage. (Do
> we have a guess of whether it will, or do we need a package that builds
> in experim
Hi,
Am Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 12:52:13AM +0100 schrieb Drew Parsons:
> On 2023-01-18 22:31, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> >
> > This "broken by numpy 1.24" bug looks to me like 17033, not 17630.
> > This has what looks like a trivially-backportable patch, though I
> > haven't actually tried that:
> >
On 2023-01-18 22:31, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
This "broken by numpy 1.24" bug looks to me like 17033, not 17630.
This has what looks like a trivially-backportable patch, though I
haven't actually tried that:
https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/17035
We can try applying that patch to scipy 1.8
Control: tags -1 fixed-upstream patch
Control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/17033
This "broken by numpy 1.24" bug looks to me like 17033, not 17630. This
has what looks like a trivially-backportable patch, though I haven't
actually tried that:
https://github.com/scipy/scip
19 matches
Mail list logo
