Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On 2013-04-02 21:53:08 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> am Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 05:07:27PM +0200 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> > I don't think that the status even of a big package like iceweasel
> > is satisfactory.
> I pretty much agree. But what's the problem here? That xulrunner and
> iceweasel have rdeps in the archive that aren't necessarily
> compatible with a new version of iceweasel and hence introducing yet
> another transition whenever the targeted release changes.
I suppose that iceweasel could be built against the libraries from
testing. Then AFAIK, there remains a few rdeps problems, concerning
libmozjs and xulrunner (which must match the iceweasel version),
but this can be resolved by having both versions installed (this
Having different versions of some libs installed at the same time
may not really be satisfactory, but a very old version of iceweasel
is worse, IMHO.
> > And concerning transitions, you don't need a freeze to block them.
> As if it would be that easy. c.f. R, which this thread is about and which
> didn't change any package name.
You can see that concerning R, the freeze was pretty useless to avoid
some problems. Now, the freeze only concerns testing. And it is easy
to prevent packages from migrating to testing. A spurious RC bug is a
There is no need to freeze *all* the packages.
Vincent Lefèvre <email@example.com> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)