On Thu, 5 May 2016, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 05/05/2016 01:37 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > * mips, powerpc and s390x are stuck at version 0.15.0-2
> > * arm64, armel, armhf and mipsel are stuck at version
> > 0.15.1+git125-ge463818-1
>
> File an RM bug against ftp.debian.org to remove t
On 05/05/2016 01:37 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> * mips, powerpc and s390x are stuck at version 0.15.0-2
> * arm64, armel, armhf and mipsel are stuck at version 0.15.1+git125-ge463818-1
File an RM bug against ftp.debian.org to remove the old binary packages
from the unsupport architectures, that wil
Well, it seems downgrading those bugs was not enough, sorry.
Try
rmadison -S -s sid pandas
and you will see this:
* mips, powerpc and s390x are stuck at version 0.15.0-2
* arm64, armel, armhf and mipsel are stuck at version 0.15.1+git125-ge463818-1
I don't think this package will propagate to
On Wed, 04 May 2016, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Hi. In case it does not work as expected, there is also another thing
> that you could do, and it is your prerrogative as package maintainer,
> which is to modify "Architecture: any" in debian/control and put only
> the "actually supported" architecture
On Wed, 4 May 2016, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> severity 790925 important
> severity 814795 important
> thanks
>
> On Wed, 04 May 2016, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > The package was removed from testing, so there is no "past" (unless we
> > want to consider stable as the "past").
>
> > In other words
severity 790925 important
severity 814795 important
thanks
On Wed, 04 May 2016, Santiago Vila wrote:
> The package was removed from testing, so there is no "past" (unless we
> want to consider stable as the "past").
> In other words: Would the maintainer consider making #790925 and
> #814795 just
Santiago Vila writes:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 02:56:01PM +0200, Andreas Hilboll wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry for maybe not understanding Debian (which is very well
>> possible). I'm only interested in amd64, which means that from my point
>> of view there should be no reason why the amd64 pandas shoul
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 02:56:01PM +0200, Andreas Hilboll wrote:
> I'm sorry for maybe not understanding Debian (which is very well
> possible). I'm only interested in amd64, which means that from my point
> of view there should be no reason why the amd64 pandas should be held up
> by bugs on oth
On Wed, 04 May 2016, Andreas Hilboll wrote:
> > that is current state of endeavors that it does. Someone would need to
> > address those big endian issues to resolve outstanding issues, and then
> > it would happily migrate back into testing. Let me know if you would
> > like to help.
> As I on
Yaroslav Halchenko writes:
> On Wed, 04 May 2016, Andreas Hilboll wrote:
>
>> >> currently, there are no packages python-pandas and python3-pandas in
>> >> Testing / Stretch, for the amd64 platform. I'm not sure if this is
>> >> related to #814795, but it is very inconvenient to have this package
On Wed, 04 May 2016, Andreas Hilboll wrote:
> >> currently, there are no packages python-pandas and python3-pandas in
> >> Testing / Stretch, for the amd64 platform. I'm not sure if this is
> >> related to #814795, but it is very inconvenient to have this package
> >> missing from Testing.
> >
Source: pandas
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
currently, there are no packages python-pandas and python3-pandas in Testing /
Stretch, for the amd64 platform.
I'm not sure if this is related to #814795, but it is very inconvenient to have
this package missing from Testing.
-- System Info
12 matches
Mail list logo
