Re: Sub-backports?
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 04:22:04PM +0200, Johannes Ranke wrote:
> Am Freitag, 26. Mai 2017, 16:54:37 CEST schrieb Adrian Bunk:
>...
> > 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.
This still leaves the opposite problem of allowing R 3.3.3 to be used
with all packages that were built against 3.4.0, unless you also want
to manually add build dependencies on R (>= 3.4) and Breaks: R (<< 3.4)
to all packages that needed the rebuild.
> > 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.
When doing such a transition the normal way with binNMUs, a version
1.0-1 in unstable would get binNMU'ed against R 3.4.0 as 1.0-1+b1
The backport built against R 3.4.0 would require a version higher than
1.0-1 but lower than 1.0-1+b1
IMHO (just my personal opinion) the ABI changes make R not very
suitable for backports.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: