[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Status of the Octave 6 transition



Le vendredi 01 janvier 2021 à 23:08 +0100, Rafael Laboissière a écrit :
> * Sébastien Villemot <sebastien@debian.org> [2021-01-01 22:47]:

> > Le vendredi 01 janvier 2021 à 22:13 +0100, Rafael Laboissière a écrit :
> > 
> > > I uploaded version 6.1.1~hg.2020.12.27 to experimental and checked all 
> > > the packages that build-depend on octave or dh-octave. They all build 
> > > fine against the new version of the octave package, besides 
> > > psychtoolbox-3, which has some issues.  However, I just realized that 
> > > this package has never been built against octave 6.  I will investigate 
> > > this later.
> > > Since the bullseye freeze deadline is approaching, we should make a 
> > > plan regarding the uploading of this new version to unstable, as well 
> > > as those for the remaining packages which are stuck (stk, interval, 
> > > level-set and vibes).
> > 
> > Thanks for your work.
> > 
> > In my opinion, the latest version of octave could directly be uploaded 
> > to unstable. The risk of breakage is minimal, since we’re following the 
> > stable branch of octave.
> > 
> > There are at least two additional changes that I would like to make 
> > before the bullseye release:
> > 
> > - reinstate the build dependency on sundials, since the latter has 
> > migrated back to testing, and octave 6 should normally be compatible 
> > with sundials 4
> > 
> > - fix upstream bug #59704, which badly impacts Dynare.¹ There is a 
> > candidate patch, but it still needs review by other octave devs.
> > 
> > I will probably make those changes once the latest version of octave 
> > migrates to testing.
> 
> What do you mean by “latest version”? The one that I uploaded to 
> experimental?

Yes indeed.

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Sébastien Villemot
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  https://sebastien.villemot.name
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  https://www.debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: