Hi Sandro, On 12-05-18 21:29, Sandro Tosi wrote: > the np.random.dirichlet errors seem a bug in how scipy calls that function: > https://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy-1.14.0/reference/generated/numpy.random.dirichlet.html
Can you file a bug against python-scipy for this then? > the other issues with numerical values are hard to understand from my POV - > can you get upstream involved? Not me, but I hope some of the people in my original TO. I have no knowledge at all about these python packages or their upstream, that is why I sent out the mail to start with. Paul > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:51 PM Paul Gevers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear maintainers, > >> [This e-mail is automatically sent. V2 (20180508)] > >> As recently announced [1] Debian is now running autopkgtests in testing >> to check if the migration of a new source package causes regressions. It >> does this with the binary packages of the new version of the source >> package from unstable. > >> With a recent upload of python-numpy the autopkgtest of python-scipy >> started to fail in testing [2]. This is currently delaying the migration >> of python-numpy version 1:1.14.3-2 [3]. > >> This e-mail is meant to trigger prompt direct communication between the >> maintainers of the involved packages as one party has insight in what >> changed and the other party insight in what is being tested. Please >> therefore get in touch with each other with your ideas about what the >> causes of the problem might be, proposed patches, etc. A regression in a >> reverse dependency can be due to one of the following reasons (of course >> not complete): >> * new bug in the candidate package (fix the package) >> * bug in the test case that only gets triggered due to the update (fix >> the reverse dependency, but see below) >> * out-of-date reference date in the test case that captures a former bug >> in the candidate package (fix the reverse dependency, but see below) >> * deprecation of functionality that is used in the reverse dependency >> and/or its test case (discussion needed) >> Triaging tips are being collected on the Debian Wiki [4]. > >> Unfortunately sometimes a regression is only intermittent. Ideally this >> should be fixed, but it may be OK to just have the autopkgtest retried >> (a link is available in the excuses [3]). > >> There are cases where it is required to have multiple packages migrate >> together to have the test cases pass, e.g. when there was a bug in a >> regressing test case of a reverse dependency and that got fixed. In that >> case the test cases need to be triggered with both packages from >> unstable (reply to this e-mail and/or contact the ci-team [5]) or just >> wait until the aging time is over (if the fixed reverse dependency >> migrates before that time, the failed test can be retriggered [3]). > >> Of course no system is perfect. In case a framework issue is suspected, >> don't hesitate to raise the issue via BTS or to the ci-team [5] (reply to >> me is also fine for initial cross-check). > >> To avoid stepping on peoples toes, this e-mail does not automatically >> generate a bug in the BTS, but it is highly recommended to forward this >> e-mail there (psuedo-header boilerplate below [6,7]) in case it is >> clear which package should solve this regression. > >> It can be appropriate to file an RC bug against the depended-on package, >> if the regression amounts to an RC bug in the depending package, and to >> keep it open while the matter is investigated. That will prevent >> migration of an RC regression. > >> If the maintainers of the depending package don't have available effort >> to fix a problem, it is appropriate for the maintainers of the >> depended-on package to consider an NMU of the depending package. Any >> such an NMU should take place in accordance with the normal NMU rules. > >> Neither of the above steps should be seen as hostile; they are part of >> trying to work together to keep Debian in tip-top shape. > >> If you find that you are not able to agree between you about the right >> next steps, bug severities, etc., please try to find a neutral third >> party to help you mediate and/or provide a third opinion. Failing that >> your best bet is probably to post to debian-devel. > >> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2018/05/msg00001.html >> [2] https://ci.debian.net/packages/p/python-scipy/testing/amd64/ >> [3] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=python-numpy >> [4] https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/TriagingTips >> [5] #debci on oftc or [email protected] >> [6] python-numpy has an issue >> ============ >> Source: python-numpy >> Version: 1:1.14.3-2 >> Severity: normal or higher >> Control: affects -1 src:python-scipy >> User: [email protected] >> Usertags: breaks >> ============ >> [7] python-scipy has an issue >> ============ >> Source: python-scipy >> Version: 0.19.1-2 >> Severity: normal or higher >> Control: affects -1 src:python-numpy >> User: [email protected] >> Usertags: needs-update >> ============ > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Python-modules-team mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team
