Bug#976506: Fix for bullseye
El 9/1/23 a las 16:25, Nilesh Patra escribió: I would make an upload proposal in the form of debdiff, but I'm unsure about backporting the fix in unstable to stable in this case, because I don't really understand it. I will not do it, it is not worth the effort. The package is functional, it fails a test due to the date being set in 2021, and this fails upstream as well as they confirmed it. Ok, you don't have to do it yourself, as there is also the possibility of NMU (which I was trying to avoid). The reason this is necessary in bullseye is that packages in stable *must* build in stable. This was already a release goal for bullseye, it's not a new requirement. Naturally, if packages start failing after we release bullseye, it follows that the only way to keep bullseye buildable from source is to fix things as they happen. But again, I will not force anybody to do uploads they don't want to do. Thanks.
Bug#976506: Fix for bullseye
On 9 January 2023 8:11:11 pm IST, Santiago Vila wrote: >reopen 976506 >found 976506 1.7.2-1 >found 976506 1.7.2-2 >fixed 976506 2.0.1-1 >thanks > >Hi. Please consider fixing this in stable as well, >as packages in stable must build in stable. > >If you have never done an upload for stable, the procedure >is documented here: > >https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#special-case-uploads-to-the-stable-and-oldstable-distributions > >I would make an upload proposal in the form of debdiff, but I'm unsure >about backporting the fix in unstable to stable in this case, because >I don't really understand it. I will not do it, it is not worth the effort. The package is functional, it fails a test due to the date being set in 2021, and this fails upstream as well as they confirmed it. Thanks.
Bug#976506: Fix for bullseye
reopen 976506 found 976506 1.7.2-1 found 976506 1.7.2-2 fixed 976506 2.0.1-1 thanks Hi. Please consider fixing this in stable as well, as packages in stable must build in stable. If you have never done an upload for stable, the procedure is documented here: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#special-case-uploads-to-the-stable-and-oldstable-distributions I would make an upload proposal in the form of debdiff, but I'm unsure about backporting the fix in unstable to stable in this case, because I don't really understand it. In bullseye the code was like this: @pytest.mark.skipif(datetime.now() <= datetime(2021, 12, 1), reason="Don't understand why this doesn't behave. Punt.") and I removed the "if" and the condition (datetime etc) in my proposal to fix this in unstable. But now in version 2.0.1-1 I see this: @pytest.mark.skipif(reason="Don't understand why this doesn't behave. Punt.") I believe the "if" thing does not apply here, but I don't know enough python to be 100% sure. Thanks.
