Bug#784160: transition: proj
On 05/08/2015 11:26 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 06/05/15 23:51, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> On 05/03/2015 09:45 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2015 09:08 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
>>>> On 2015-05-03 17:25, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
>>>>> We've had proj 4.9.x in experimental for some time now, and I'd like to
>>>>> move it from experimental to unstable as the first stretch transition
>>>>> for the Debian GIS team.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently PROJ.4 4.8.0 is unstable and jessie, and PROJ.4 4.9.1 is in
>>>>> experimental.
>>>>>
>>>>> Updating PROJ.4 from 4.8.0 to 4.9.1 involves a SONAME bump from
>>>>> libproj.so.0 to libproj.so.9.
>>>>
>>>> Please go ahead; there are (currently) no entanglements. Thanks for
>>>> testing thoroughly in experimental.
>>>
>>> Thanks, I've uploaded proj 4.9.1-1.
>>
>> To resolve the build failures for postgis in hurd-i386 & mipsel, I've
>> manually bin-nmu'ed the packages on the respective porterboxes.
>>
>> The testsuite is known to fail on these architectures, using
>> DEB_BUILD_OPTIIONS=nocheck allows the builds to succeed.
>>
>> Since postgis (2.1.5+dfsg-1~exp2) for hurd-i386, and postgis
>> (2.1.6+dfsg-1~exp1) for mipsel, the testsuite is skipped on these
>> architecture via d/rules. Unfortunately these more recent postgis
>> versions are still stuck in NEW.
>
> That got accepted.
>
> The current blockers are the cdo/ppc64el build failure (#763691) and the
> pdl/i386 one.
For PDL some patches from the upcoming release are required, see the
discussion on their list [1] and Proj commits in their git repository [2].
There are several Proj related commits, so it may make more sense to
update to PDL-2.007_17.
Henning, what do you think?
[1] http://sourceforge.net/p/pdl/mailman/message/33627488/
[2] https://github.com/PDLPorters/pdl/commits/master
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
Reply to: