[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R

On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 01:28:58PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > 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
> is possible).

I said rdeps. Packages that depend on iceweasel and xulrunner. While the latter
is coinstallable, the former is not.

> > > 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
> solution.

I interpreted your argument as being different:

>>> They should normally be detected when the package is uploaded in
>>> unstable.
>>> And concerning transitions, you don't need a freeze to block them.

Hence yes, we could block packages in unstable from being updated.
Transitions also happen for unstable which cause temporary
uninstallability, so I'm not sure what block you're talking about then.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: