On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 09:29:34AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 6 September 2017 at 15:12, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > | On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 07:37:07AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > | > It is a trivial "monstly non-bug" bug report. But the release team won't act, > | > so I am now resigned to waiting. I explained the case in > | > > | > https://bugs.debian.org/868558 > | > > | > with any of the few (40-some now) packages still affected. They load and > | > function too for me. (My test was not exhaustive though). > | > > | > I am frustrated, but I can not get any change to happen. I tried an email to > | > debian-devel last week, but to no avail. > | > | I wonder, what's blocking you from just sourcefully uploading all of > | those packages? Being only 40 would make it quite feasible IMO, and I > | bet there could be something you could change too (worse case, you could > | just bump Std-Ver :P). > > I rather seriously considered it. I need a free weekend (not this one), and > maybe a volunteer (or two) to help. We could just fetch the respective > packages, do a manual .1 version and upload to the DELAYED queue. Shall we? I don’t think this solves the problem, because partial upgrades could still be broken. The right solution is to add a list of versioned Breaks to the r-base package. This solves the partial upgrade problem, and my understanding is that the Release Team would be ready to schedule binNMUs once this is done. The difficult point is to deal with binNMU’d version number of reverse dependencies, which can differ across architectures. But this list can probably be generated by some smart query against dak, UDD or snapshot.d.o. If you think this is the way to go, I can probably give a helping hand. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature