Bug#690482: Bug #690482: unblock: nwchem/6.1-4

[Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>]

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 09:27:03PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 21:16:18 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 09:04:39PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > Package: release.debian.org
> > > Severity: normal
> > > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > > Usertags: unblock
> > > 
> > > Please unblock package nwchem.  This upload does not fix RC bugs, but it
> > > includes backported important fixes of the 6.1.1 point release (due to non-code
> > > changes like removal of documentation and updated testsuite files, the
> > > interdiff between 6.1 and 6.1.1 is huge, thus we have extracted the changes)
> > > 
> > > Comparing the testuite runs Debian is doing between 6.1-3 and 6.1-4,
> > > test suite run tests/mcscf_ch2/mcscf_ch is now running OK, which
> > > produced non-converging gradients in a geometry optimization, see
> > > (i386):
> > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=nwchem&arch=i386&ver=6.1-3&stamp=1333196687
> > 
> > Any update on this?  It would be really nice to get those bugfixes into
> > wheezy.
>  
> The initial mail didn't make it to the list AFAICT.
 
Yeah, not sure what went wront there.

> > If they are absolutely not possible to review, can we at least get the
> > patch in which fixes the outstanding testsuite failure (though note that
> > the Debian package only runs a tiny portion of the upstream testsuite to
> > be buildd-friendly) via t-p-u?  Should we file a seperate bug for that
> > before uploading?
> > 
> I haven't had time to look at the upstream changes, but from the 6.1-4
> diff, at least the part about adding python stuff is a no-go as far as
> I'm concerned.

OK, but note that the python parsing is compiled in, no python modules
or so are exposed and the package file listing is not changed.  This is
just to add more flexibility to the input parser.

Anyway, we will prepare an upload for t-p-u.


Michael