Bug#791046: getfem++ and GCC 5 transition
user release.debian@packages.debian.org usertag 791046 + transition block 791046 by 790756 reassign 791046 release.debian.org thanks I have prepared a team upload to experimental using the previously posted patch. http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-science/packages/getfem.git This is part of a bug-fix update of the upstream source from 4.2.1~beta1~svn4635~dfsg to 4.3+dfsg However, it's blocked by: libstdc++6 : Breaks: python-scipy (= 0.14.1-1) but 0.14.1-1 is to be installed. That's there because it was built from cpython and required c++ support: https://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2015/08/msg00046.html https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=793227 I'll submit a separate binNMU request for python-scipy that blocks this
Bug#791046: getfem++ and GCC 5 transition
Hi Scott, thanks for the pushing it. I think there is no need to upload it into experimental, let`s upload it directly into unstable. The only problem is that there is already a newer version of getfem than in our git, 5.0. So I do not think there is a need to push the previous svn-version. Regards Anton 2015-08-23 21:44 GMT+02:00 Scott Howard showard...@gmail.com: user release.debian@packages.debian.org usertag 791046 + transition block 791046 by 790756 reassign 791046 release.debian.org thanks I have prepared a team upload to experimental using the previously posted patch. http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-science/packages/getfem.git This is part of a bug-fix update of the upstream source from 4.2.1~beta1~svn4635~dfsg to 4.3+dfsg However, it's blocked by: libstdc++6 : Breaks: python-scipy (= 0.14.1-1) but 0.14.1-1 is to be installed. That's there because it was built from cpython and required c++ support: https://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2015/08/msg00046.html https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=793227 I'll submit a separate binNMU request for python-scipy that blocks this -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#791046: getfem++ and GCC 5 transition
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Anton Gladky gl...@debian.org wrote: Hi Scott, thanks for the pushing it. I think there is no need to upload it into experimental, let`s upload it directly into unstable. The only problem is that there is already a newer version of getfem than in our git, 5.0. So I do not think there is a need to push the previous svn-version. Hi Anton, I was just writing you about this, thanks for catching it earlier The push to experimental was to get the new package name through the NEW queue, trigger an auto-transition tracker, and give time for you to review changes without changing the library interface. I haven't tested reverse-depends against libgetfem5++ so I'm not comfortable enough with this library to bump the soversion. But you're right, it would be ideal to do push the version released last month if possible. Cheers, Scott
Bug#791046: getfem++ and GCC 5 transition
I would then propose only to upload the so-name change with the current version to fix the transition issue. The newer 5.0 version can go to experimental to properly check all rdepends. Anton 2015-08-23 22:14 GMT+02:00 Scott Howard showard...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Anton Gladky gl...@debian.org wrote: Hi Scott, thanks for the pushing it. I think there is no need to upload it into experimental, let`s upload it directly into unstable. The only problem is that there is already a newer version of getfem than in our git, 5.0. So I do not think there is a need to push the previous svn-version. Hi Anton, I was just writing you about this, thanks for catching it earlier The push to experimental was to get the new package name through the NEW queue, trigger an auto-transition tracker, and give time for you to review changes without changing the library interface. I haven't tested reverse-depends against libgetfem5++ so I'm not comfortable enough with this library to bump the soversion. But you're right, it would be ideal to do push the version released last month if possible. Cheers, Scott
