On 1/16/23 17:23, Andreas Tille wrote:
Am Sat, Jan 07, 2023 at 09:05:21AM +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille:
If I would create a list mine whould be way longer.
Please share it in this list!
#1023965 [src:pandas] pandas FTBFS with Python 3.11 as supported version
#1024031 [src:numba] numba FTBFS with Python 3.11 as supported version
I saw the above 2 were fixed.
I'd like to add
#1027851 [src:pytorch] FTBFS with Python 3.11 as default version
also with lots of rdepends.
So we're back with one single bug. I remember seeing something similar
in another package ... (scratching my head...). The latest version of
the upstream code has some modifications to this broken Stream.cpp, have
you tried to apply them?
Do you have more to share? It's harder to help if you don't ask for it.
IMO, feel free to give a full list of problematic packages in this list,
so others may help.
I did not received any response to my "small" list. What does this
mean for the transition to 3.11 process?
As much as I know, we're moving toward having Python 3.11 only in
Bookworm. I'm not the person driving it though, and I am not in the best
position to make such choice, but I support it (as I would prefer having
the nice enhancements of Python 3.11 rather than lagging behind).
Hopefully, I wont regret it and wont find more failures in "my" packages.
We are constantly beaten by removal from testing warnings
even with Python3.11 as an option and sometimes we simply need to remove
that option as a temporary means for bookworm.
Same over here. It's finally looking good for me after 2 months of heavy
efforts.
You mean you are fixing Python 3.10 manually in some packages diverging
what will be default Python?
Any answer to this question?
All of my packages hopefully always test with all available versions,
and most run autopkgtest. So I was warned early of Py 3.11 failures.
They are all fixed, as much as I know (no opened RC bug remaining...).
And no, forcing Python 3.10 is *NOT* an option, one must fix failures in
Python 3.11.
Bug #1026825: python3.11 as default filed right before (21.12.) a series
of holidays in the region of the world where lots of developers will
typically reduce their activity which is closely followed by the first
freeze step is IMHO something else. Since I realised that the transition
was started[3] our discussion is a bit useless. I just want to explain
the motivation why I sounded "astonished" since you said that you do
not understood astonishment since we are following the suggested plan.
I keep on thinking that the timing is unfortunate and that it
will spoil the whole release process.
I'm sad to read this. Hopefully, this is truth only for some of the
packages you care, and the vast majority of the packages are fine? I'm
unfortunately not in a good position to tell (I didn't run any survey of
broken packages...).
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
