Re: Sub-backports?
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 08:57:15PM +0200, Johannes Ranke wrote:
> Am Freitag, 26. Mai 2017, 17:55:15 CEST schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> > 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.
>
> This is generally prevented by having packages compiled against newer versions
> of R depend on them. Not sure if all packagers do that though. But I should
> stop rambling about this, as there are people that know better, i.e. Dirk.
>...
Both the Breaks in r-base-core and manually setting the reverse in all
R packages would no longer be required with r-api-* changes in proper
transitions coordinated with the release team.
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: