Hi Rebecca, On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:01:27AM +0000, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: > Is the subject line a leftover, or are you actually proposing to move 0.9.0 > from experimental to unstable (which is not generally allowed in soft > freeze)?
Yes, that's a leftover. I just uploaded to experimental. Its a bit sad that official Uploaders never answered my mail from October which would have left us a plenty of time for testing. :-( Any volunteer to backport the relevant changes I pushed to Git right now to 0.8.0? I'm actually wondering why the package did not got any removal from testing warning (or did I missed something)? > The upstream fix for #880245 (the original reason given for wanting the new > version) is supposedly > > https://github.com/statsmodels/statsmodels/commit/f81cde31421288e669e859d0e798d843ca2ecabe > > but I haven't tried it by itself. I think you can not really test by yourself since the issue seemed to occure only on the specific hardware setup the bug reporter was using. As far as the bug log goes version 0.9.0 fixes the issue. Kind regards Andreas. PS: As a general note: We probably need more people dedicated to Debian Science QA work. I will definitely not do this since doing this for Debian Med consumes all my resources. We have to many open bugs in Debian Science for non-leaf packages and we should find ways to address this. We could start with people adding themselves to Uploaders and really care for those packages that have lots of rdepends. Uploaders who realised that they are not able to contribute to the package and do relevant maintenance (like answering RC bugs in at least one month) should drop themselves from the Uploaders field to avoid "fake-Uploaders" (this is not only true for statsmodels- when I migrated packages from SVN to Git I found *lots* of packages that are not maintained by their respective Uploaders any more). -- http://fam-tille.de
