Your message dated Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:05:51 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#1135890: transition: petsc, slepc, mumps, adios2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1135890,
regarding transition: petsc, slepc, mumps, adios2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1135890: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1135890
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Control: affects -1 + src:petsc src:slepc src:mumps src:adios2
User: [email protected]
Usertags: transition
Hi,
we would like to request a transition of the numerical stack libraries, namely:
- PETSc and petsc4py, from 3.24 to 3.25
- SLEPc and slepc4py, from 3.24 to 3.25
- mumps, from 5.8 to 5.9
- adios2, from 2.11 to 2.12
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-petsc.html
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-slepc.html
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-mumps.html
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-adios2.html
The transitions are in principle independent but, since they affect the same
downstream packages and upstream source have released new versions roughly at
the same time, we would like to proceed with a single transition for the whole
stack.
The most relevant downstream packages have been locally tested for
compatibility.
dolfinx, dolfinx-mpc and vtk9 built+tested correctly without any changes.
dolfin, sundials and deal.ii have received a new upload upload in unstable for
compatibility with PETSc 3.25.
Cheers,
Francesco
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 25/06/2026 18:41, Drew Parsons wrote:
On 2026-06-25 11:37, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
These sundials tests are confusing me.
https://ci.debian.net/packages/s/sundials/testing/amd64/72397287/
is testing the old (not rebuilt) version 7.1.1+dfsg1-12 of sundials
against the new petsc 3.25, so of course it fails.
https://ci.debian.net/packages/s/sundials/testing/amd64/72376730/
uses the new bin-NMU rebuilt version 7.1.1+dfsg1-12+b1
and so passes with the new petsc 3.25.
...
This other failure is probably of a similar nature, although the test
is quite succinct:
https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/amd64/d/dolfinx-mpc/72428997/log.gz
Since we in general don't want to add that kind of Breaks, because it
makes upgrades harder and is very unlikely that a system ends up in a
mixed state, I'll force the migration where needed. > It'd be good to
confirm that this last test (dolfinx-mpc) falls in that situation, and
perhaps make (in a future upload) the test more verbose. As for the
unreproducibility, since it's not a > regression, I'll ignore it for
now. A little progress on that front (e.g. a bug report somewhere
appropriate) would be welcome, since this will bite us again in the
next transition.
I think dolfinx-mpc is following the same logic. It's not showing red
in any of the tracker pages, mind, it already passed.
It passed tests with the new petsc 3.25 in
https://ci.debian.net/packages/d/dolfinx-mpc/testing/amd64/71965048/
using the binNMU rebuilt dolfinx-mpc 0.10.5-1+b1.
After some hints, petsc et al have migrated to testing. Closing this.
Cheers,
Emilio
--- End Message ---
