Bug#1027244: scikit-learn Re: Are we still trying to do scipy 1.10, given transition freeze?
Am Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 09:05:28AM +0100 schrieb Drew Parsons: > On 2023-02-07 08:33, Graham Inggs wrote: > > Hi Drew > > > > I think python3-scipy should declare a Breaks on python3-skbio less > > than the version in unstable (0.5.8-3). > > This should sort out the autopkgtest regressions of emperor, > > python-skbio itself, q2-metadata and q2-quality-control, which are all > > passing in unstable, and allow scipy and python-skbio to migrate > > together. > > Ok, I'll add that with the gammapy patch. Thanks a lot. > > Python-cooler seems to have a different failure, and I don't see a bug > > filed for it. > > cooler seems to be fixed in experimental, I guess it just needs to be > uploaded to unstable. I'll do so Thanks for the hint Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#1027244: scikit-learn Re: Are we still trying to do scipy 1.10, given transition freeze?
On 2023-02-07 08:33, Graham Inggs wrote: Hi Drew I think python3-scipy should declare a Breaks on python3-skbio less than the version in unstable (0.5.8-3). This should sort out the autopkgtest regressions of emperor, python-skbio itself, q2-metadata and q2-quality-control, which are all passing in unstable, and allow scipy and python-skbio to migrate together. Ok, I'll add that with the gammapy patch. Python-cooler seems to have a different failure, and I don't see a bug filed for it. cooler seems to be fixed in experimental, I guess it just needs to be uploaded to unstable. Drew
Bug#1027244: scikit-learn Re: Are we still trying to do scipy 1.10, given transition freeze?
Hi Drew I think python3-scipy should declare a Breaks on python3-skbio less than the version in unstable (0.5.8-3). This should sort out the autopkgtest regressions of emperor, python-skbio itself, q2-metadata and q2-quality-control, which are all passing in unstable, and allow scipy and python-skbio to migrate together. Python-cooler seems to have a different failure, and I don't see a bug filed for it. Regards Graham
Bug#1027244: scikit-learn Re: Are we still trying to do scipy 1.10, given transition freeze?
On 2023-01-27 10:25, Andreas Tille wrote: https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?experimental=1=scikit-learn scikit-learn looks like it should manageable. I've uploaded scipy 1.10 to unstable now. Drew
Bug#1027244: scikit-learn Re: Are we still trying to do scipy 1.10, given transition freeze?
Am Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 07:51:23PM + schrieb Rebecca N. Palmer: > Control: tags 1029701 fixed-upstream > > Full log: > https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/unstable/amd64/s/scikit-learn/30693526/log.gz > > There appear to be at least 2 separate failures here, both known and > probably fixed upstream. So yes, 'new upstream version' is the first thing > to try, but we'll need to check what _that_ breaks. Sure. Thus I uploaded to experimental first. I hope we can get some enlightenment from https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?experimental=1=scikit-learn soon (at the time of writing this is empty since the package was just uploaded). At least autopkgtest is passing. I'll check Debian Med related packages manually later. Kind regards Andreas. > https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/issues/23626 > https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/issues/24424 -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#1027244: scikit-learn Re: Are we still trying to do scipy 1.10, given transition freeze?
Control: tags 1029701 fixed-upstream Full log: https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/unstable/amd64/s/scikit-learn/30693526/log.gz There appear to be at least 2 separate failures here, both known and probably fixed upstream. So yes, 'new upstream version' is the first thing to try, but we'll need to check what _that_ breaks. https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/issues/23626 https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/issues/24424
