On 21.12.2016 19:16, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> They are still, what the name suggests: candidates, with no confirmation
>> to be useful in a production environment. I don't see why they should
>> ever migrate to testing (as they did in 1.11.1rc.1). Last time, we had
>> an numpy RC in testing for more t
> They are still, what the name suggests: candidates, with no confirmation
> to be useful in a production environment. I don't see why they should
> ever migrate to testing (as they did in 1.11.1rc.1). Last time, we had
> an numpy RC in testing for more than four months (2016-05-06 to
> 2016-10-16)
Hi Sandro,
On 21.12.2016 16:43, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Sure; what I also don't understand is why numpy pushes its RC and betas
>> into unstable instead of experimental (and then maybe check or asks for
>> checking for the reverse deps). This
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Sure; what I also don't understand is why numpy pushes its RC and betas
> into unstable instead of experimental (and then maybe check or asks for
> checking for the reverse deps). This makes it harder to revert if there
> are problems.
>
> S
On 21.12.2016 16:17, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I can clearly understand why Andreas is unhappy to see when such a
> change is uploaded without prior warning 1.5 months after the start
> of the freeze, and 1 week before an important deadline for his package.
Sure; what I also don't understand is why nu
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 03:38:36PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> On 21.12.2016 15:29, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:05:57PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> >> ...
> >> The according functions are since then marked as "deprecated" and issue
> >> a warning. Numpy int
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:05:57PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
>...
> The according functions are since then marked as "deprecated" and issue
> a warning. Numpy introduced this change with 1.11rc already, which was
> uploaded to Debian about 6 months ago. After it appears that many
> packages (als
Hi Adrian,
On 21.12.2016 15:29, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:05:57PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> ...
>> The according functions are since then marked as "deprecated" and issue
>> a warning. Numpy introduced this change with 1.11rc already, which was
>> uploaded to Debian abou
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 07:54:35AM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>...
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:40:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> >> For python-skbio to have any chance of being part of stretch, the
> >> latest possible date for an upload of a package without any RC bugs
> >> is Christmas D
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> In my initial response I mentioned skiping the test. However, I
> intended to discuss this first since simply hiding the eyes from an
> upgrading problem is not the prefered way to go.
youre not closing your eyes to a problem: you find one,
Hi Ole,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:05:57PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> On 21.12.2016 11:59, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:40:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >> For python-skbio it is *really* time to panic *right now*.
> > Thanks for confirming that I was not actually pani
Hi Sandro,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 07:54:35AM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >> For python-skbio it is *really* time to panic *right now*.
> >>
> >> python-skbio is currently not in testing.
>
> the last upload (0.5.1-1) was done on Nov 19 and
Hi all,
On 21.12.2016 11:59, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:40:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> For python-skbio it is *really* time to panic *right now*.
> Thanks for confirming that I was not actually panicing. ;-)
While I agree in principle, I would like to remind the follo
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Adrian and Anton,
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:40:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 09:01:31AM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> > > it seems the recent upgrade of numpy has broken some tests in other
>> > > packages l
Hi Adrian and Anton,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:40:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 09:01:31AM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > > it seems the recent upgrade of numpy has broken some tests in other
> > > packages like for instance this one in python-skbio. I wonder whether
>
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 09:01:31AM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > it seems the recent upgrade of numpy has broken some tests in other
> > packages like for instance this one in python-skbio. I wonder whether
> > you are either able to suggest patches to get the tests working with the
> > new interf
2016-12-20 15:01 GMT+01:00 Sandro Tosi :
>> it seems the recent upgrade of numpy has broken some tests in other
>> packages like for instance this one in python-skbio. I wonder whether
>> you are either able to suggest patches to get the tests working with the
>> new interface of numpy again or wh
> it seems the recent upgrade of numpy has broken some tests in other
> packages like for instance this one in python-skbio. I wonder whether
> you are either able to suggest patches to get the tests working with the
> new interface of numpy again or whether it might be sensible to revert
> the up
[Debian Science maintainers and Debian Med packaging in CC as warning]
Hi Sandro,
it seems the recent upgrade of numpy has broken some tests in other
packages like for instance this one in python-skbio. I wonder whether
you are either able to suggest patches to get the tests working with the
new
19 matches
Mail list logo
