On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 09:36:43PM -0700, Diane Trout wrote:
> > > * Some of the doc pages call get_rdataset, and there's no network
> > > access in the builder so those calls fail. (ugliest error)
> >
> > Can you pre-fetch the data and provide it in debian/datasets?
>
> I made the changes and ca
> > Below is what I've found so far, (before getting tired of licensing
> > issues)
> >
> > Any thoughts about how to handle this?
>
> I wonder how this was dealt with before? If that much data sets were
> needed to build the docs, how did the doc generation process worked
> before?
Perhaps th
Thanks for digging into this and sorry I have missed that. I typically
add export http*_proxy to prevent any network interactions but I guess
didn't get that far with statsmodels.
FWIW, for dipy package I now ask upstream to provide me e.g.
dipy_0.12.0.orig-doc-examples.tar.gz
where there a
Hi Diane,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:36:17AM -0700, Diane Trout wrote:
> > BTW, I'd love if you would merge your work to master branch. I'm a
> > bit
> > confused by the amount of branches and lost track which one to look
> > at.
>
> I verified which was which and deleted the obsolete branch.
>
> While I have not tried to build the current status I wonder what you
> think about #873512. I'm perfectly fine with your solution to
> exclude
> some tests - I just wanted to give a hint that there is a potential
> upstream patch.
I think I looked at the upstream commits that fixed it,
https:
Hi!
[please keep me in CC, I am not on the list]
We just had a short conversation on the #debian-devel IRC channel
regarding the upcoming Python 2 EOL, in the context of the Sphinx
packages.
As a packager of Python tools (and an upstream), I find the current
situation a little confusing. My Pyth
> Since it is accepted for the R packages and the data are refering
> to R data I do not see any reason why this should not be accepted.
I traced back from Rdatasets to the original R packages.
Every one of the packages are licensed as some combination of GPL-2 and
GPL-3
However it's likely tha
Dear Diane,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 02:49:12PM -0700, Diane Trout wrote:
>
> > While I have not tried to build the current status I wonder what you
> > think about #873512. I'm perfectly fine with your solution to
> > exclude
> > some tests - I just wanted to give a hint that there is a potentia
Dear Diane,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:47:21PM -0700, Diane Trout wrote:
>
> > Since it is accepted for the R packages and the data are refering
> > to R data I do not see any reason why this should not be accepted.
>
> I traced back from Rdatasets to the original R packages.
>
> Every one of t
9 matches
Mail list logo
