Re: Suitesparse 3.2.0
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 10:52:15PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> + Julian Gilbey (Tue, 07 Apr 2009 19:51:29 +0100):
> > Is there any reason to still be holding back suitesparse from
> > migrating to testing (as requested by Adeodato)? It is now the only
> > thing, AFAICT, holding back openoffice.org 3.0 from migrating to
> > testing.
> suitesparse is going to need manual poking for it to transition, I hope
> to get to that on Thursday. In the meantime, while it wasn’t ready, I
> added a “block” hint to make britney go faster (so that it doesn’t try
> costly updates that are doomed to fail). I’ve removed the unblock now
> and added a hint, but it won’t be successful until I can pay closer
> + Rafael Laboissiere (Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:20:46 +0200):
> > * Julian Gilbey <email@example.com> [2009-04-07 19:51]:
> > > Is there any reason to still be holding back suitesparse from
> > > migrating to testing (as requested by Adeodato)? It is now the only
> > > thing, AFAICT, holding back openoffice.org 3.0 from migrating to
> > > testing.
> > According to the transitions summary page , the package illuminator is
> > the only blocker .
> > I do not understand though why this package is taking so long to
> > autobuild. Most of the architectures are waiting for libpetsc3.0.0-dev,
> > but this package is already built everywhere since one week or so.
> #522764 (and, to a lesser extent, #522699). However, getting illuminator
> built wouldn’t buy us much, since it will depend on the new petsc, and
> the new petsc is a small transition of its own that I have no idea how
> ready it is.
> As I agreed with the Openoffice.org maintainer today, I’ll be pushing
> suitesparse without petsc/illuminator before the end of the week,
> hopefully on Thursday. Until now we were waiting on, at least, an armel
> build of openoffice.org 3.0.1-9.
The armel build has now completed.
Excited about seeing openoffice 3.0 in testing - thanks for everyone's