pandas 1.3.5+dfsg-2 autopkgtest failures
In Debian (only change from -1 should be disabling some tests, i.e. real pandas-related failures are unlikely): mdtraj/amd64: upstream tests pass but a warning is printed to stderr, which autopkgtest counts as a fail partd/ppc64el: save/load of a plain string fails snakemake/i386: hang in test_pipes_fail statsmodels/armhf: wrong answer in TestDFMComplex These have all happened before, suggesting they're random, i.e. bugs in these packages not in pandas. (For partd, the other known instance was on a different architecture (s390x), but it looks like partd only uses pandas when it's handling pandas objects, which this test isn't.) In Ubuntu (their first build of 1.3.x, i.e. real pandas-related failures are more plausible): poliastro, python-xarray: These fail with the same error with either new pandas or new matplotlib, and have not had a reference run since then. I suspect they'd now fail every time. python-anndata: Known in Debian as #1001349, fixed there but the fix fails to build in Ubuntu.
Re: onetbb_2021.4.0-1~exp1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi, Thanks a lot to Scott for the review! @Andreas: Thanks, please go ahead. Ping me if it FTBFS or any patch needs a rebase. On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 17:22 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Scott, > > Am Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 03:00:08PM + schrieb Scott Kitterman: > > > > Normally for a package already in Debian I wouldn't reject due to > > copyright/ > > license documentation, but I am making an exception is this case. > > I only > > started to look at this package by doing grep -ir copyright * over > > the source. > > I made redirected the output of that to a file and made a list of > > all the > > copyright notices that are not currently reflected in > > debian/copyright. It > > has 806 lines. > > > > It looks clear to me that either the package has been completely > > reworked by > > upstream and the maintainer didn't check or it's been years (looks > > like five) > > since anyone looked at debian/copyright. > > > > Please fix and reupload. This package needs a comprehensive review > > of > > copyright and licensing and the documentation of the results in > > debian/ > > copyright per policy. > > Thanks a lot for your review. I think I've fixed d/copyright in > Git[1]. > > @Mo: I had trouble with pristine-tar to extract the source tarball of > version 2021.4.0-1 which you uploaded. Since there is a new upstream > version meanwhile I'm currently building 2021.5.0-1 with the > intention > to upload it to experimental via NEW. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > [1] > https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/tbb/-/blob/master/debian/copyright >
Re: onetbb_2021.4.0-1~exp1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Scott, Am Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 03:00:08PM + schrieb Scott Kitterman: > > Normally for a package already in Debian I wouldn't reject due to copyright/ > license documentation, but I am making an exception is this case. I only > started to look at this package by doing grep -ir copyright * over the source. > I made redirected the output of that to a file and made a list of all the > copyright notices that are not currently reflected in debian/copyright. It > has 806 lines. > > It looks clear to me that either the package has been completely reworked by > upstream and the maintainer didn't check or it's been years (looks like five) > since anyone looked at debian/copyright. > > Please fix and reupload. This package needs a comprehensive review of > copyright and licensing and the documentation of the results in debian/ > copyright per policy. Thanks a lot for your review. I think I've fixed d/copyright in Git[1]. @Mo: I had trouble with pristine-tar to extract the source tarball of version 2021.4.0-1 which you uploaded. Since there is a new upstream version meanwhile I'm currently building 2021.5.0-1 with the intention to upload it to experimental via NEW. Kind regards Andreas. [1] https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/tbb/-/blob/master/debian/copyright -- http://fam-tille.de
