On 09-07-2020 21:16, peter green wrote:
> All of the reverse dependencies of python-numpy have already been
> removed from testing. So IMO
> it makes sense to remove python-numpy from testing at this point, do
> other people agree?
I think it makes sense, so I added a removal hint.
On 14-03-2020 14:30, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> Any help would be welcome
I can't help you with this.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
TL;DR: as the subject suggests, proposal included, although not fully
aligned with others.
On 08-12-2019 20:55, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> there seems to be disagreement on how to proceed, so for the time
> being i suspended the severity bump part of the py2removal tracking
> script. let me
On 03-12-2019 13:19, Matthias Klose wrote:
> It's unfortunate that issues for some packages only get attention when the
> severity of an issue is raised. Following your proposal means that the issue
> probably ignored forever, and you don't propose a better way going forward,
On 02-12-2019 22:15, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> the blocks are only between py2removal packages, so if a package
> un-related to the py2removal effort
> depend/recomments/b-deps/autotest-triggers a py2removal *application*, that
> is still considered a leaf package
You'll fix that, right? Because
On 02-12-2019 20:33, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> po 2. 12. 2019 v 20:28 odesílatel Paul Gevers <mailto:elb...@debian.org>> napsal:
> I understand the drive to push for Python 2 removal and sympathize with
> it. The issue I had yesterday wit
On 01-12-2019 22:45, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Paul, this is the thread i was talking about.
> you were copied in the original email:
> if there is something the RT wants to discuss about this effort,
> please do so here, not
On 22-10-2019 17:04, Matthias Klose wrote:
> He suggested to make the removal plan more
> concrete and having a timeline.
To be more precise on what I meant, I'm talking here about *every*
package that wants to drop a Python 2 binary package, discuss (and
ideally agree on, but I
On 12-09-2019 17:01, Ian Jackson wrote:
> But we need to be clear what's going on and communicate early.
Yes, not on the front page, but there is (first bullet):
On 16-03-2019 13:48, Drew Parsons wrote:
>> The numpy.sparse tests pass with this patch, and most of the matrix
>> PendingDeprecationWarnings are gone (the upstream patch missed
>> integrate/tests/test_ivp.py, but the remaining warnings are few enough
>> to not need to worry about).
On 07-03-2019 14:56, Drew Parsons wrote:
> On 2019-03-07 20:46, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> However, it is probably worth waiting for a resolution of bug
>> 915738 and combine it with that.
> There hasn't been recent movement on 915738. I'll apply Julian's patch
On 07-03-2019 13:19, Drew Parsons wrote:
>> Can you elaborate why you think that bug should be RC (as that isn't
>> clear to me from the report itself) and why you haven't marked it as
>> such if you think it should be?
> python-scipy is currently failing all debci tests in both
On 07-03-2019 09:03, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 07:01:54PM +0800, Drew Parsons wrote:
>> python-scipy has recently started failing all debci tests in testing and
>> unstable, exacerbating the bug report in Bug#919929 .
>> The failing error is a MemoryError. But
Hi Mattia, all,
On 07-01-2019 17:20, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 09:03:11AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Mattia Rizzolo writes:
>>> On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 05:07:41PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
Now it turns out that there is a new migration problem, which is aplpy:
Mail list logo