Bug#1040001: transition: r-base

[Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org>]

Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
X-Debbugs-Cc: r-base@packages.debian.org, debian-r@lists.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:r-base

Hi,

I'm not sure that we are in the right status to ask for a transition bug
since the affected package was just uploaded some time ago by its
maintainer who did not considered a proper transition.  This was discussed
on debian-r@lists.debian.org in several postings - I try to point you to
the most relevant ones

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-r/2023/06/msg00011.html
    as a response to >30 bugs against single packages all affecting
    the r-base migration due to (to be expected) autopkgtest errors
    in testing.  You can basically get this list of now all RC buggy
    packages from the tracker page or r-base[1]

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-r/2023/06/msg00017.html
    suggests r-graphics-api-* after r-base maintainer confirmed
    "they cheated _a little_ and changes the graphics API" (probably
    meaning ABI not API)

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-r/2023/06/msg00016.html
    Reference to the docs

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-r/2023/06/msg00025.html
    In the end of this mail three options are listed which I simply
    repeat here for your comfort:

   1. implement the r-graphics-api-*
      This might be a bit complex since for the moment I do not know
      any means how to detect the packages that need this dependency
      (and how we can implement this into dh-update-R)  So this might
      become technically complex in the first case

   2. Just do a full r-api transition
      This would work but affects more packages than strictly
      necessary.  My gut feeling says we will be able to finish this
      earlier than 1. despite technically not perfect

   3. Blindly ignore the fact that we need a transition and follow
      the hackish workaround by using random versioned Depends as
      suggested by Nilesh for r-cran-epi.

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-r/2023/06/msg00027.html
    Confirmation for option 1.


While I would love to hear the opinion of the release team what kind of
transition (1. or 2.) should be prefered (if this is possible now at all
since the affected package r-base 4.3.1 is in the archive since some
time and also the most urgent packages are rebuild manually) or whether
we need to fight manually through this mess (option 3.)  I confirm that
I agree with Johannes Ranke to prefer option 1. and do it "right" to be
safe for the next time.

To support this idea I just commited some proof of concept change to
dh-r which would support injecting a virtual package in case r-base
would define it.  This requires confirmation of the r-base maintainer.

Sorry that this transition bug is that complex.  I would have loved if
it would went more coordinated but unfortunately that's not in my hands
and I simply try to reassemble the pieces.

Kind regards
    Andreas.

[1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/r-base
[2] https://salsa.debian.org/r-pkg-team/dh-r/-/commit/f79e2573a59c1ff01c526a7dcf15b7f85263cc29

Ben file:

title = "r-base";
is_affected = <Fill out>;
is_good = <Fill out>;
is_bad = <Fill out>;