Hi Alastair,
No problem!
Sadly, though, -4 still fails on armel, armhf, i386 and s390x :( The
s390x failures look different from the other three archs. Would you
be able to have another go (and upload directly to unstable)?
Best wishes,
Julian
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 12:13:44PM +0100, Ala
Thank you,
Apologies I've been away and connectivity (and responsiveness) was
intermittent.
Regards
Alastair
On 28/04/2025 07:16, Julian Gilbey wrote:
I've just uploaded -4 to unstable, which is identical to -3 in
experimental but with a new changelog entry:
python-xarray (2025.03.1-4)
I've just uploaded -4 to unstable, which is identical to -3 in
experimental but with a new changelog entry:
python-xarray (2025.03.1-4) unstable; urgency=medium
* Team upload
* Push to unstable
-- Julian Gilbey Mon, 28 Apr 2025 06:43:27 +0100
Best wishes,
Julian
On Fri, Apr 25, 20
Hi Alastair
Thanks for working on these failing tests.
I'm not sure that the uploads are going where you intend, however:
$ grep ^python-xarray debian/changelog | head -2 | tac
python-xarray (2025.03.1-2) experimental; urgency=medium
python-xarray (2025.03.1-3) unstable; urgency=medium
$ rmadi
Hi Julian
Upload to unstable done.
Regards
Alastair
On 24/04/2025 07:37, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Hi Alastair,
It seems to be fine in experimental (though it is only debci-tested on
amd64 and arm64), so please do go ahead and upload -4 to unstable.
You don't need to request an unblock at this st
Hi Alastair,
It seems to be fine in experimental (though it is only debci-tested on
amd64 and arm64), so please do go ahead and upload -4 to unstable.
You don't need to request an unblock at this stage; see
https://release.debian.org/testing/freeze_policy.html#soft
Best wishes,
Julian
On Mon
H Anathanu
A patch to fix this has just been uploaded. Once it is safely tested in
experimental, I'll request an unblock.
There was somehow a buggy -2 upload that missed the actual patch in d/rules
Best regards
Alastair
On 19/04/2025 11:56, Ananthu C V wrote:
Hi Alastair,
python-xarray
Hi Alastair,
python-xarray currently reports several test failures[0]. If the package
migrates to testing, it'd fix #1100293[1] which otherwise could cause a lot
of AUTORM.
The test failures are on the 32bit archs (armel, armhf, and i386), as well as
s390x. The failures on 32bit archs don't look
8 matches
Mail list logo