Le mardi 14 mars 2017 17:21:20 UTC, anatoly techtonik a écrit : > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Ghislain Vaillant <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > Early disclaimer: I am one of the Debian package maintainers for spyder. > > Nice. I've create a recipe that builds Spyder automatically. > https://code.launchpad.net/~techtonik/+recipe/spyderlib-daily-master > > But.. it seems I got branches wrong. It builds from master > https://code.launchpad.net/~techtonik/spyderlib/master > merges with Debian packaging > https://code.launchpad.net/~techtonik/spyderlib/debian-packaging > and resulting binary has a version 3.1.2. > > You need to bump the version in debian/changelog accordingly.
I created another recipe to work directly with Git branches, but it fails > to build fail at all. > https://code.launchpad.net/~techtonik/+recipe/spyderlib-daily > That's why I'd recommend to use the backportpackage utility on the Debian experimental or the Ubuntu Zesty package (which is sync'd from experimental). Debian experimental will receive all subsequent updates whilst the freeze is happening. > Le dimanche 12 mars 2017 14:39:31 UTC, anatoly techtonik a écrit : > > > > It depends what definition of "stable" you mean, i.e. as bug-free or as > > non-changing. > > > > Sure, each release of spyder introduces its lot of bug-fixes but also > new > > features and enhancements which are likely to introduce regressions. For > > instance, the recent breakage of code completion with Jedi comes to my > mind > > (thanks Carlos for fixing it for 3.1.4). > > Bug free. Regressions are not good, but it is better to have regressions > and ability install earlier version temporarily than don't have an ability > to install version without bugs. > That's your opinion. Stable releases of Debian are focusing on being regression-free from one version to the next. Should you need to keep up with the latest updates of spyder, then there are better alternatives like installing spyder in a venv or using Debian testing/unstable, at a higher price of system maintenance. > >> Or maybe provide an automatic PPA that builds Spyder from tags? > > > > This could be a good idea and should be quite straightforward to deploy. > You > > can start with the current Debian packaging [1], use the Ubuntu > > backportpackage utility [2] to rebuild spyder and necessary dependencies > for > > Ubuntu 16.04, and push the resulting packages to an "official" PPA on > > Launchpad [3]. I won't do it personally, as maintaining the official > Debian > > packaging is time consuming enough, but feel free to have a go and get > in > > touch. > > > > [1] https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/spyder.git > > [2] > http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/precise/man1/backportpackage.1.html > > [3] https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA > > Sorry. It is about 16.10, not 16.04. The point is to get 3.1.x > releases on Yakkety. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/spyder/+bug/1672159 > You could do both with backportpackage. There is an option to specify the target distribution of the package. You may try both Xenial and Yakkety, although the value of providing backports for Yakkety is arguable considering the short support cycle of interim Ubuntu releases. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "spyder" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/spyderlib. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
