Re: Are we still trying to do scipy 1.10, given transition freeze?
Hi Drew, Andreas
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 17:34, Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Am Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 04:29:59PM +0100 schrieb Drew Parsons:
> > heh yeah, I was just replying about that :)
>
> So at least I was beating you in writing an e-mail! :-P
>
> > Are we confident on bringing scipy 1.10 to the new stable?
>
> In any case we should probably follow Graham's advise to let things
> migrate to testing first.
scipy/1.8.1-22 and numpy/1:1.24.1-2 have just migrated to testing, so
please go ahead with uploading scipy 1.10 to unstable when you're
ready.
> Meanwhile someone with a proper setup might run ratt on it. I
> personally failed setting up sbuild to get this done but having some
> verification that at least this tool does not uncover serious issues
> would make sense.
Since we don't have to rebuild all the packages involved, I don't
think a test rebuild before uploading is necessary. I suspect the
packages with failing autopkgtests might also FTBFS, and maybe a few
more that don't have autopkgtests. We will have test rebuilds of the
archive before release which will catch these.
The experimental pseudo excuses for scipy 1.10.0-1exp6 [1] look good
to me, only 12 regressions. By the way, we have just enabled these
for the release architectures with autopkgtests, so expect results for
more architectures to appear over the next few hours.
Regards
Graham
[1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?experimental=1&package=scipy
Reply to: