Re: Sub-backports?
Am Freitag, 26. Mai 2017, 16:54:37 CEST schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 02:17:50PM +0200, Johannes Ranke wrote:
> >...
> >
> > As R just made a change for R 3.4.0 that made some depending packages
> > compiled on earlier versions incompatible with R 3.4.0, I decided to
> > create a new repository for R 3.4.0, so people would not automatically
> > fetch an update that breaks their packages.
> >
...
> Having too strict dependencies is better than breakages for users due to
> missing dependencies.
>
> The right thing for #861333 in buster would have been the r-api-*
> approach with an upload to experimental first and then reqesting a
> transition slot from the release team.
Copying in Dirk, the maintainer of r-base as he is not reading debian-
backports I believe...
> Regarding R and backports:
>
> What do you expect to happen with already installed R packages if R
> 3.4.0 ever enters stretch-backports, and a user does
> apt-get -t stretch-backports install r-base-core
Well, at the moment R 3.4.0 is RC buggy due to this issue so I have no idea
what will happen. What I would like to happen in this situation is that the it
conflicts with all packages that it breaks.
> Handling that properly would not only require properly changed r-api-*
> dependencies from buster, any attempt to replicate such a transition
> properly in backports would result in things like +b1~bpo9+1 packages.
Sorry, but I do not understand.
>
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Johannes
>
> cu
> Adrian
Reply to: