Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:23:36PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> NEW processing happens whether the new package is meant for unstable or
> experimental. Whether the package is in unstable or experimental does
True.
> not change how that package gets tested. It can affect how that package
> affects the release.
Yes, also true.
> Having packages in experimental does not block the ability to test or
> upload other packages which depend on functionality in those new
> versions - you just need an appropriate setup, maybe a chroot.
Wrong. When I upload something which depends on a package which
isn't available this is uninstallable -> useless.
And testing is not only "local machine" but "testing in experimental".
(see above.) By *real usage*. (There have already been
upgrade bugs found by people using my packages in experimental)
> Even if you think there are a few days between the time taken to process
> NEW for experimental vs NEW for unstable, I've seen no evidence of that
> and it's not as if a few days are really going to matter. (If it's that
> critical, find a webhost running Debian and install reprepro.)
A few days? There's stuff there *for months*?
And yes, I do people.debian.org. That's not the same as experimental.
(E.g. builds on the majority of architectures will be untested.
People will not look there, etc.)
> What's so hard about that with the R packages?
Read and think again, please.
I am not caring about R and I am not defeinibg Direk. In contrast,
he should have known that he shouldn't upload.
I am telling about the general case.
That your simple toy packages are not affected by this because they don't
have as much r-deps as e.g. libreoffice. fine. But that doesn't make
the problem go non-existant.
Regards,
Rene
Reply to: