Re: Please consider quantlib_0.3.9 (and -ruby,-python,-doc) for testing
On 13 May 2005 at 16:31, Steve Langasek wrote:
| Hi Dirk,
|
| On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:39:18PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > My QuantLib packages in testing are in an inconsistent state:
|
| > Name testing unstable
| > ----------------------------------------------------------
| > quantlib 0.3.8.rc.20050412-1 0.3.9-1
| > quantlib-python 0.3.8-2 0.3.9-1
| > quantlib-refman 0.3.8-1 0.3.9-1
| > quantlib-refman-html 0.3.8-1 0.3.9-1
| > quantlib-ruby 0.3.8-1 0.3.9-1
|
| > Here QuantLib is the binary library, -ruby and -python depend on it.
|
| > We now have a pre-relesae of 0.3.9 in testing which is __incompatible__ with
| > the quantlib-ruby and quantlib-python versions in testing as the API still
| > changes between releases.
|
| > I would suggest to move the whole 0.3.9 block into testing once the ten day
| > window is up. The packages are all bug-free and "mostly" built. We currently
| > lack a) a few m68k builds and b) quantlib-python on mipsel . For m68k, Rick
| > Younie and I hashed out that we should stop providing QuantLib. For mipsel,
| > I wish we could agree on the same -- the build simply timed out after 150
| > mins in the heavy C++ template code (which would have completed). However, I
| > think mipsel wasn't part of the previous release and is generally behind as
| > per
| > http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=quantlib-python&searchon=names&subword=1&version=all&release=all
| > so maybe we can overlook this as a showstopper?
|
| > Lastly, and for completeness r-cran-rquantlib 0.1.12 is the only other
| > dependency of QuantLib, and it could be pulled in too.
|
| > Please email back if there are questions.
|
| No questions; however, to get these packages in, you'll need to follow
| through on this agreement with Rick regarding m68k quantlib binaries, and
| get them removed from the archive.
|
| As the maintainer, please file a bug against ftp.debian.org asking for the
| m68k binaries to be removed from unstable for libquantlib0,
| libquantlib0-dev, quantlib-examples, quantlib-ruby, quantlib-python, and
| r-cran-rquantlib. (If you are not actually the maintainer of all of these
| packages, the ftpmasters may ask for you to consult with the other
| maintainers as well.)
Done!
| The quantlib-python problem on mipsel shouldn't block getting these other
| packages in since it's a problem that already affects testing (as we've
| discussed), but we should still try to get it resolved before release. It
| would be a dubious honor for quantlib-python to be the only package that
| ships in sarge with an out-of-date per-arch binary. :)
I'll email the mipsel folks and tell them :)
| Anyway, the changes for quantlib itself are trivial, and as discussed
| previously, quantlib-ruby and quantlib-python need to be brought up-to-date
| to fix a FTBFS problem, so those updates are all ok. Does the same build
| problem apply to quantlib-refman and quantlib-refman-html? If not, I don't
Those are binary all, and they don't really "build". I just re-wrap the
upstream tarball of html files (from doxygen) and the pdf file for these two.
| think we'll want to update those if it's not necessary. Likewise, it
| doesn't sound like r-cran-rquantlib needs updating.
Well yes -- 0.1.11 corresponded to the 0.3.8 we are replacing in testing. So
0.1.12 would make more sense.
Thanks as always for all that!
Dirk
--
An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he
predicted yesterday didn't happen today. -- Laurence J. Peter
Reply to: