Hi, On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:47:08AM +0000, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 10:17 +0100, Daniel Stender wrote: > > On 08.02.2017 09:13, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: > > > I have patches for #848764 and #831540; I haven't yet found the cause of > > > #831541, but as it only affects big-endian systems, partial removal is an > > > option. > > > > > > However, one of these bugs is a point where upstream plan to make an > > > incompatible change (though my fix doesn't), and upstream aren't sure > > > whether having Theano in a long-release-cycle distribution such as Debian > > > is a good idea: https://github.com/Theano/Theano/issues/5494 > > On first read, it sounds to me that upstream is failing to understand > that having theano in the archive does not replace or substitute > traditional development workflow via pip if users want to.
And/or maybe upstream feels anybody using an "obsolete" version of theano is doing something wrong. And/or maybe upstream would feel some kind of obligation/duty to support users of "obsolete" versions of Debian-shipped theano on Debian systems, if Debian were to ship with those. See also the xscreensaver debacle, some months ago. I'm just guessing here, extrapolating from other upstreams. > Our packages are here to support future applications / frameworks, > which may require an appropriately packaged theano. Considering the > success of deep-learning these days, this prospect is quite likely. > > > > (Note that their suggested alternative of using pip will involve manually > > > installing libblas-dev, as pip only knows about Python dependencies.) Anyway, it would be good to make clear what Debian expects of upstream, and how shipping theano with Debian might even be _beneficial_ for upstream. Bye, Joost
