Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #11207
| From | Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.maint.python |
| Subject | Re: Numpy migration? |
| Date | 2019-01-05 20:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xd07g-14F-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <xcUXT-6rf-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <xcVhg-6xW-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <xcVU0-72b-53@gated-at.bofh.it> <xcWdj-78E-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> writes: > On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:02:35PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: >> I'll do tonight. It however looks a bit suboptimal: when the CI test >> with a new version fails for an old reverse dependency, then the new >> version obviously breaks that old package. So, the breakage could be >> detected (and taken into account) automatically. Why do we need a manual >> action then? > > Let me try to suggest you see from another side: the goal of the Breaks > field is to prevent a given combination of known broken packages to be > installed. > Currently autopkgtest blocks the migration of numpy, but if there wasn't > that block a Breaks should still be added, as the astropy in testing is > not compatible with the new numpy. The fact that it hints britney to > trigger the right tests is just a "side effects", the Breaks should be > added nonetheless, theoretically; in practice, we rarely did it before > autopkgtest started blocking the testing migration. I agree (with the explanation in your other mail) here; it just states the fact that they really don't go together very well (at least in situation similar to the specific CI test). >> Python-astropy is however going to be removed completely; it has >> however some cruft rdeps left in unstable. So, it cannot removed from >> unstable now, and therefore still remains in testing and >> (unnecessarily) blocks the numpy migration. Python-astropy already >> has an RC bug, but its autoremoval from testing is still not even >> announced yet. > > Maybe you could ask the release team to hasten the removal of > python-astropy and rdeps from testing? If the plan is to not relase > it in buster I don't see a reason to keep it further. Couldn't we just also add a "breaks" to numpy? The important fact here is, that the new numpy and the current python-astropy don't work together; and this is independent of whether a fixed python-astropy version exists. This would remove one dependent party (release team) from the chain of blocking causes for the migration. >> The migration blocking CI tests seem to cause much more headaches than >> just "fix your bugs"... > > Well, from what I see, it has helped a lot in this half a year detect a > ton of regressions that would have otherwise bothered several people in > a later moment… I usually regularly look into my packages and file bugs if a CI test fails caused by a buggy updated dependency. This works well without the need of blocks. It would also work, when a failing CI test would automatically trigger a bug report against the updated package, which then could be re-assigned to the rdep in case the problem was there. So, I value very much the CI tests by themself: they are the greatest invention since sliced bread, but I still dislike the inflexible handling of blocks. Often, a failing CI test makes a package only buggy with respect to a certain feature, so it would correspond to a "important" or "normal" bug severity. They are however always handled like a "serious" bug by preventing migration. I miss the "That was not a serious failure" button. Thanks fur your help! Best Ole
Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Numpy migration? Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 15:20 +0100
Re: Numpy migration? Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 15:40 +0100
Re: Numpy migration? Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 16:20 +0100
Re: Numpy migration? Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 16:40 +0100
Re: Numpy migration? Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 20:50 +0100
Re: Numpy migration? Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-05 21:00 +0100
Re: Numpy migration? Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 01:40 +0100
Re: Numpy migration? Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 17:30 +0100
Re: Numpy migration? Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2019-01-06 18:20 +0100
Re: Numpy migration? Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 18:50 +0100
Re: Numpy migration? Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 19:00 +0100
Re: Numpy migration? Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> - 2019-01-07 09:30 +0100
Re: Numpy migration? Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2019-01-07 17:30 +0100
Re: Numpy migration? Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> - 2019-01-07 18:10 +0100
Re: Numpy migration? Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2019-01-07 21:10 +0100
Re: Numpy migration? Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 16:40 +0100
Re: Numpy migration? Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 16:50 +0100
csiph-web