On 1/25/20 3:57 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> On 25/01/2020 08.04, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> All rebuilds have been scheduled.
>> There are 2 packages (python-escript
>> (sid only) and pythonmagick) that FTBFS now, but didn't before. Can you
>> please check? Especially pythonmagick looks suspicious to
Processing control commands:
> block -1 with 949828 949829
Bug #948378 [release.debian.org] transition: boost-python
948378 was not blocked by any bugs.
948378 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 948378: 949829 and 949828
--
948378: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?b
Control: block -1 with 949828 949829
On 25/01/2020 08.04, Paul Gevers wrote:
> All rebuilds have been scheduled.
Thanks.
> There are 2 packages (python-escript
> (sid only) and pythonmagick) that FTBFS now, but didn't before. Can you
> please check? Especially pythonmagick looks suspicious to my
Hi Andreas,
On 08-01-2020 00:03, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
[...]
> So let's rebuild all rdepends of libboost-python1.67.0 and friends to
> tighten the dependencies and properly document which python support is
> being used. That should help with the python2 removal (and a future
> removal of python
You could also add /libboost.*-py27/ as a bad dependency to the
python2-rm transition.
Andreas
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
This is not a real transition, just a request for a bunch of binNMUs to
tighten the boost-python dependencies.
Boost currently builds these packages:
libboost-python1.67.0
libboost-m
6 matches
Mail list logo
