Bug#1056841: pymatgen: ftbfs with cython 3.0.x

2024-01-19 Thread Andreas Tille
Am Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 08:22:21PM +0100 schrieb Drew Parsons: > On 2024-01-19 18:52, Drew Parsons wrote: > > > > Hi Andreas, could you push your upstream and pristine-tar branches? > > Otherwise we can't use your 2023.12.18 branch. > > I see what you mean. The tag is there, the orig tarball

Bug#1056841: pymatgen: ftbfs with cython 3.0.x

2024-01-19 Thread Drew Parsons
On 2024-01-19 18:52, Drew Parsons wrote: Hi Andreas, could you push your upstream and pristine-tar branches? Otherwise we can't use your 2023.12.18 branch. I see what you mean. The tag is there, the orig tarball can be regenerated with gbp export-orig.

Bug#1056841: pymatgen: ftbfs with cython 3.0.x

2024-01-19 Thread Drew Parsons
On 2024-01-16 17:55, Andreas Tille wrote: Control: tags -1 pending Hi, I've applied the patch in Git and also tried to upgrade to latest upstream since there is a chance that other Python3.12 issues might be fixed. Unfortunately the upgrade is all but straightforward and I gave up finally

Bug#1056841: pymatgen: ftbfs with cython 3.0.x

2024-01-16 Thread Drew Parsons
On 2024-01-16 17:55, Andreas Tille wrote: Control: tags -1 pending Hi, I've applied the patch in Git and also tried to upgrade to latest upstream since there is a chance that other Python3.12 issues might be fixed. Unfortunately the upgrade is all but straightforward and I gave up finally

Bug#1056841: pymatgen: ftbfs with cython 3.0.x

2024-01-16 Thread Andreas Tille
Control: tags -1 pending Hi, I've applied the patch in Git and also tried to upgrade to latest upstream since there is a chance that other Python3.12 issues might be fixed. Unfortunately the upgrade is all but straightforward and I gave up finally over the changes in the sphinx documention