On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 15:55 +0100, Pietro Battiston wrote: > Il giorno mar, 17/01/2017 alle 23.26 +0000, Ghislain Vaillant ha > scritto: > > On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 22:35 +0100, Pietro Battiston wrote: > > > [...] > > > I am a bit confused. It seems to me that bottleneck itself is not > > > in > > > worse shape than before the numpy regression was introduced. > > > > It is still not worth releasing as it is. Sure the binary packages do > > build, but they fail to test with the current version of Numpy. > > Yes, but it's because of numpy :-) > > > Assuming, numpy stays in this version for the release, i.e. without > > the > > fix for the regression, then we'd be effectively releasing a buggy > > bottleneck package for Stretch. > > I don't consider a software "buggy" just because its tests expose a > regression of some other software :-)
This is true if you consider the software *alone*. Debian is a *distribution*, so we should consider the software and its environment as a whole, which includes its runtime dependencies. > And I would hardly consider this as a valid reason for not releasing in > Stretch. Bare in mind that the software is currently releasable in Stretch only because the tests were disabled so far. > But anyway: I like the last approach you just proposed, I just pushed > your changes to alioth and asked my sponsor to upload. Thanks :-) Meanwhile, I filed a request to Sandro to cherry-pick the upstream fix for the regression in numpy. Hopefully, he'll accept. Ghis
