On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 03:22:57AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 12:53:42PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 01:58:14AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > * spyder: #1088068/#1089054.
> >
> > I'm struggling with this one; I've asked at
> > h
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 01:58:14AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> While there are a few bits of that transition tracker still red, the
> current target is to work on the list of autopkgtest failures shown on
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python3-defaults in order to get the
> addition of 3.13 as a
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 12:53:42PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 01:58:14AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > [...]
> > * spyder: #1088068/#1089054.
>
> I'm struggling with this one; I've asked at
> https://github.com/spyder-ide/spyder/issues/23074
> for help, but nothing so
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 01:58:14AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> [...]
> * spyder: #1088068/#1089054.
I'm struggling with this one; I've asked at
https://github.com/spyder-ide/spyder/issues/23074
for help, but nothing so far. I've just pushed my current work to
salsa (g...@salsa.debian.org:scienc
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 10:29:06AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> python3-defaults in unstable now adds Python 3.13 as a supported Python 3.13
> version. You might see some additional build failures, until the binNMUs
> for this addition are done [1]. This might take some days for some
> architect
Hi debian-python (2024.11.13_15:01:31_+)
> Hi PICCA (2024.11.13_10:04:26_+)
> > I am a bit worrying for the scientific stack , will we have enough
> > time to work with our upstream in order to fix all these FTBFS. In the
> > scientific stack, things are going slowly
>
> The reality he
Hi PICCA (2024.11.13_10:04:26_+)
> I am a bit worrying for the scientific stack , will we have enough
> time to work with our upstream in order to fix all these FTBFS. In the
> scientific stack, things are going slowly
The reality here is that Python has a 6-month release cycle, these days
Le Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:46:21AM +0100, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel a écrit :
>
> So we try hard to maintain our packages in testing, and it it always a
> deception to see them (part of) expelled from testing due to an FTBFS
> with a new Python or a failing autopkgtest.
On days where my thoughts ar
> this is the same as we did for the Python 3.12 transition. Please note
> that we don't enable any of the experimental features in Python 3.12 (no
> GIL, JIT compilation), so assuming there are currently no other RC
> issues in your packages, there should plenty of time to fix any 3.13
> related
On 13.11.24 11:04, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote:
do we know how long we will have to fix all the FTBFS and autopkgtest before
the freeze ?
no. the freeze date is not yet announced.
I am a bit worrying for the scientific stack , will we have enough time to work
with our upstream in order to
do we know how long we will have to fix all the FTBFS and autopkgtest before
the freeze ?
I am a bit worrying for the scientific stack , will we have enough time to work
with our upstream in order to fix all these FTBFS. In the scientific stack,
things are going slowly
We are not 100% of o
python3-defaults in unstable now adds Python 3.13 as a supported Python
3.13 version. You might see some additional build failures, until the
binNMUs for this addition are done [1]. This might take some days for
some architectures. We will most likely also see some more issues once
the lower
12 matches
Mail list logo
