Rebecca N. Palmer: > > > On 05/03/2019 06:32, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Hi Rebecca, >> >> I realise that the answer now is probably less relevant as your enquiry >> had a deadline that has now passed. >> >> Rebecca N. Palmer: >>> i.e. are we effectively frozen (due to 10 day testing migration) now? >>> >> >> At the time you wrote[Sat, 2 Mar 2019 07:53:02], "no". But "when" it >> became effectively frozen is >> a bit harder to say. But then, I would rather that we talk about the >> concrete packages than last minute uploads. >> >> [...] >> >> What packages are we talking about? > > statsmodels and pandas. > > Unfortunately, while they worked when tested separately, it turned out > that one breaks the other (#923707), so at least one of them is going to > need a new upload and unblock. >
Could you file an unblock request for pandas with a debdiff relative to the current *sid* version so I can see what additional changes will be needed for fixing pandas? If we can come to an agreement about those changes, I am open to slapping unblock hints on pandas (the new version) and statsmodels (the current sid version) plus issue a give-back for statsmodels in exchange for the 3 RC bug fixes between them on the assumption that the pandas change is the only missing bit for them to be release ready/RC bug free. >> [... Quote from elbrus ...]> Does "installed" imply "built"? Due to the >> above bug, statsmodels won't be buildable until pandas is fixed. Yes and yes. However, there would still have been alternative solutions where statsmodels issue could have been resolved without an upload of statsmodels and it would have migrated to testing without any issues in time[1] for the soft freeze. If you are interested in the alternatives for future reference, then I am happy to explain/expand on this. But given my suggestion above, I assume it will not be relevant in this particular case. Thanks, ~Niels [1] Depending on what time of day on the 12th the soft freeze ends. This is still an open question as elbrus's mail implied.
