Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On 31 March 2013 at 22:14, Philipp Kern wrote:
| On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:33:46PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > In the grand scheme of things, R is a rather peripheral package.
|
| Not sure where you get that idea, but given that you insist on that:
|
| | pkern@franck ~ % dak rm -nR -s testing r-base
| | Working... done.
| […]
| | Checking reverse dependencies...
| | # Broken Depends:
| [ 175 lines ]
| |
| | # Broken Build-Depends:
| [ 181 lines ]
| |
| | Dependency problem found.
|
| I realize that you wrote the list already in your first mail, but that's
| absolutely not "peripheral".
When I said "peripheral" I meant in the sense that none of the Depends are
used by anything else beyond R. I know it is "not small" -- there are now
4400 R packages on CRAN, and we have about 150 of those in Debian.
| > Please just put a "block" on r-base-core to prevent it from migrating to
| > testing. All these dependencies will be held too.
|
| Blocking RC bug fixes in any of the packages build-depending (even indirectly)
| on r-base. Well done.
Damn. I did probably blow the possible migration of Rcpp 0.10.3 (for which I
half of upstream) into testing. It's RC, though, is a two-line patch for *BSD
compilation of one source file. Maybe we can deal with that separately?
| > I cannot influence the R release cycle which happens within our freeze. As
| > have a few previous R releases, and none of those created any trouble.
|
| Thanks for trading the R release cycle with Debian's and for delaying the
| release. The harm has already been done, so somebody should probably go
| and create a transition tracker for it?
I didn't mean to create extra work. We had two such transitions for R before
in the last five years, and they just worked.
I assumed it would just work again. I should have asked here, and didn't.
My bad.
Dirk
--
Dirk Eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com
Reply to: