[Python-modules-team] New version of python-numpy breaks autopkgtests of python-scipy in testing

[Paul Gevers]

Hi Sandro,

On 12-05-18 21:29, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> the np.random.dirichlet errors seem a bug in how scipy calls that function:
> https://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy-1.14.0/reference/generated/numpy.random.dirichlet.html

Can you file a bug against python-scipy for this then?

> the other issues with numerical values are hard to understand from my POV -
> can you get upstream involved?

Not me, but I hope some of the people in my original TO. I have no
knowledge at all about these python packages or their upstream, that is
why I sent out the mail to start with.

Paul

> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:51 PM Paul Gevers <elbrus at debian.org> wrote:
> 
>> Dear maintainers,
> 
>> [This e-mail is automatically sent. V2 (20180508)]
> 
>> As recently announced [1] Debian is now running autopkgtests in testing
>> to check if the migration of a new source package causes regressions. It
>> does this with the binary packages of the new version of the source
>> package from unstable.
> 
>> With a recent upload of python-numpy the autopkgtest of python-scipy
>> started to fail in testing [2]. This is currently delaying the migration
>> of python-numpy version 1:1.14.3-2 [3].
> 
>> This e-mail is meant to trigger prompt direct communication between the
>> maintainers of the involved packages as one party has insight in what
>> changed and the other party insight in what is being tested. Please
>> therefore get in touch with each other with your ideas about what the
>> causes of the problem might be, proposed patches, etc. A regression in a
>> reverse dependency can be due to one of the following reasons (of course
>> not complete):
>> * new bug in the candidate package (fix the package)
>> * bug in the test case that only gets triggered due to the update (fix
>>    the reverse dependency, but see below)
>> * out-of-date reference date in the test case that captures a former bug
>>    in the candidate package (fix the reverse dependency, but see below)
>> * deprecation of functionality that is used in the reverse dependency
>>    and/or its test case (discussion needed)
>> Triaging tips are being collected on the Debian Wiki [4].
> 
>> Unfortunately sometimes a regression is only intermittent. Ideally this
>> should be fixed, but it may be OK to just have the autopkgtest retried
>> (a link is available in the excuses [3]).
> 
>> There are cases where it is required to have multiple packages migrate
>> together to have the test cases pass, e.g. when there was a bug in a
>> regressing test case of a reverse dependency and that got fixed. In that
>> case the test cases need to be triggered with both packages from
>> unstable (reply to this e-mail and/or contact the ci-team [5]) or just
>> wait until the aging time is over (if the fixed reverse dependency
>> migrates before that time, the failed test can be retriggered [3]).
> 
>> Of course no system is perfect. In case a framework issue is suspected,
>> don't hesitate to raise the issue via BTS or to the ci-team [5] (reply to
>> me is also fine for initial cross-check).
> 
>> To avoid stepping on peoples toes, this e-mail does not automatically
>> generate a bug in the BTS, but it is highly recommended to forward this
>> e-mail there (psuedo-header boilerplate below [6,7]) in case it is
>> clear which package should solve this regression.
> 
>> It can be appropriate to file an RC bug against the depended-on package,
>> if the regression amounts to an RC bug in the depending package, and to
>> keep it open while the matter is investigated. That will prevent
>> migration of an RC regression.
> 
>> If the maintainers of the depending package don't have available effort
>> to fix a problem, it is appropriate for the maintainers of the
>> depended-on package to consider an NMU of the depending package. Any
>> such an NMU should take place in accordance with the normal NMU rules.
> 
>> Neither of the above steps should be seen as hostile; they are part of
>> trying to work together to keep Debian in tip-top shape.
> 
>> If you find that you are not able to agree between you about the right
>> next steps, bug severities, etc., please try to find a neutral third
>> party to help you mediate and/or provide a third opinion. Failing that
>> your best bet is probably to post to debian-devel.
> 
>> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2018/05/msg00001.html
>> [2] https://ci.debian.net/packages/p/python-scipy/testing/amd64/
>> [3] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=python-numpy
>> [4] https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/TriagingTips
>> [5] #debci on oftc or debian-ci at lists.debian.org
>> [6] python-numpy has an issue
>> ============
>> Source: python-numpy
>> Version: 1:1.14.3-2
>> Severity: normal or higher
>> Control: affects -1 src:python-scipy
>> User: debian-ci at lists.debian.org
>> Usertags: breaks
>> ============
>> [7] python-scipy has an issue
>> ============
>> Source: python-scipy
>> Version: 0.19.1-2
>> Severity: normal or higher
>> Control: affects -1 src:python-numpy
>> User: debian-ci at lists.debian.org
>> Usertags: needs-update
>> ============
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/python-modules-team/attachments/20180512/b5d97505/attachment.sig>