Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:56:34AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 02:28:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Niko Tyni <ntyni@debian.org> writes:
> >
> > > FWIW, I've done ABI-incompatible uploads of perl to experimental in the
> > > past without changing the perlapi-* virtual package name or the libperl
> > > SONAME. The aim was to experiment with different configuration options,
> > > particularly 64-bit integers and 128-bit long doubles.
> >
> > > I certainly didn't support upgrades from those versions to the same
> > > extent as I'd have done for unstable. OTOH, the packages were pretty
> > > close to uninstallable on any non-minimal systems anyway, as we didn't
> > > offer corresponding rebuilt XS modules in experimental.
> >
> > Oh, that's a good point. Yes, I hadn't thought about that specific case
> > for testing ABI breakage in experimental.
>
> But then that simply is a broken upload. It will break horribly if you
> install the experimental perl but keep other perl packages from sid.
Well, it wasn't installable with perl packages in sid at the time due to a
major version upgrade, which is why I was experimenting with incompatible
ABI changes in the first place. (This was around perl/5.12.0-1 or so.)
> You should have set the perlapi-* to include -experimental or
> something to make it differ from sid. Having the perlapi-* provides
> and depends makes this simple.
First, this was against the policy at the time (since fixed with
#579457.) Second, the ABI changes would also have required an extra
libperl SONAME change with the implied NEW processing. That's
too much overhead IMO.
> Imho experimental packages should be made with the hope that they
> could enter sid in the future. Sure they are for experimenting. But
> say the experiment is successfull shouldn't the package go to sid? If
> you have to redesign them at that point you will just introduce new
> bugs at that point and restart the testing process again.
The experiment in this case was seeing if the test suite passes on
all architectures or not. It did not because long doubles are weird on
powerpc, so I reverted the change. I then uploaded the next try (again,
to experimental of course) without changing the perlapi-* or the SONAME.
I still think that expecting full-blown ABI change handling for iterations
like this in experimental is too much.
--
Niko Tyni ntyni@debian.org
Reply to: