Re: Numpy migration?
On Saturday, January 05, 2019 08:30:28 PM Ole Streicher wrote:
> Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> writes:
> > On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:02:35PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> >> I'll do tonight. It however looks a bit suboptimal: when the CI test
> >> with a new version fails for an old reverse dependency, then the new
> >> version obviously breaks that old package. So, the breakage could be
> >> detected (and taken into account) automatically. Why do we need a manual
> >> action then?
> >
> > Let me try to suggest you see from another side: the goal of the Breaks
> > field is to prevent a given combination of known broken packages to be
> > installed.
> > Currently autopkgtest blocks the migration of numpy, but if there wasn't
> > that block a Breaks should still be added, as the astropy in testing is
> > not compatible with the new numpy. The fact that it hints britney to
> > trigger the right tests is just a "side effects", the Breaks should be
> > added nonetheless, theoretically; in practice, we rarely did it before
> > autopkgtest started blocking the testing migration.
>
> I agree (with the explanation in your other mail) here; it just states
> the fact that they really don't go together very well (at least in
> situation similar to the specific CI test).
For what it's worth, I hit (AIUI) the same situation when I updated python-
bleach. It broke python-readme-renderer. I reuploaded python-bleach with the
breaks and a new version of python-readme-renderer (which worked with the new
bleach) and both migrated two days later (since they both had autopkgtests).
Scott K
Reply to: