On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Sébastien Villemot <sebast...@debian.org> wrote: > Le samedi 23 février 2013 à 17:14 -0800, Ondřej Čertík a écrit : >> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Sébastien Villemot >> <sebast...@debian.org> wrote: >> > Le samedi 23 février 2013 à 17:17 +0100, Julien Cristau a écrit : >> >> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 13:42:45 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: >> >> >> >> > I have now observed this behavior also while upgrading the following >> >> > packages from squeeze -> sid (and verified that these upgrades fail on >> >> > squeeze -> wheezy(+new numpy) in the same way). >> >> > >> >> If this is due to the breaks added in the new numpy, then I'd say let's >> >> revert those. Aborting the upgrade like that seems much worse than >> >> possible incompatibilities for partial upgrades. >> > >> > Yes the problem is introduced by the new Breaks. However, as noted in my >> > previous message to this bug, this is the consequence of a real bug >> > somewhere else. >> > >> > If reverting the Breaks still has your preference, I can do it. >> >> I am the release manager of NumPy 1.7.0. Do you think this is some bug >> in NumPy itself? > > I think the bug is not in NumPy, see: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=700718#17 > > This bug has been exposed when some Breaks have been added in > python-numpy 1:1.6.2-1.1.
Ah I see. Cool. If you discover some other bug with the 1.7.0 release, that is a bug in NumPy, please let us know. Ondrej -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
