On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 06:51:02PM -0700, Dima Kogan wrote: > Sébastien Villemot <sebastien@debian.org> writes: > > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 10:16:18PM -0700, Dima Kogan wrote: > > > >> These packages are not perfect, but I think they're good-enough to push. > >> So I just pushed them to the archive. They still need to clear NEW, so > >> don't expect them to be installable TOMORROW, but soon. > > > > I have just seen that you uploaded sundials 3.1 to unstable, without > > coordinating the transition. Now this is getting untangled with the octave > > transition, and I see that sundials FTBFS on several archs. Sigh. > > > > Next time, please upload first to experimental, and at least coordinate with > > maintainers reverse dependencies. > > Yes. Right. I haven't had to think about transitions in the past, and > this clearly shows why I should in the future. Sorry. > > I looked at the sundials FTBFS; looks like some subset of tests is > timing out on some arches. I'll look into it. Is there anything in > particular I should do to make octave happy again in the near term? Thanks for your feedback. For Octave there are two options: either leave it as it is, but then the Octave transition becomes dependent on Sundials (i.e. Octave 4.4 will migrate to testing only when Sundials 3.1 does, and in particular this means that sundials build failures must be fixed soon); or I can simply temporarily remove the (build-)dependency of Octave on Sundials. Note that I could actually do the latter, because it turns out that Octave 4.4 is not (yet) compatible with Sundials 3.1. So no rush on your side anyways. Best, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature