Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On 2013-04-04 16:23:33 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 10:29:26PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > It seems that most reverse dependencies for iceweasel are l10n
> > packages and extensions, so that one can consider them as part
> > of the upgrade. The remaining dependencies seem to have a form
> > like iceweasel | www-browser. So, what would be wrong?
>
> That the extensions also need to be updated, for the very least.
If they are really maintained, they should probably have been
updated already (that's one way to make sure that security
fixes are applied). Otherwise it would be better to drop them.
> > Not also that in practice, many (most?) users will use a backport.
> > So, if some real reverse dependency would be affected by a change
> > in the iceweasel version, it rather needs to be fixed now.
>
> I presume most users of a backport don't use packaged extensions at all.
I wonder whether there are packaged extensions (and whether they
could conflict with extensions installed by the user). Automatic
handling by Firefox/Iceweasel works well.
> > I mean the update of the package in testing. A RC bug is a way to
> > block transitions from happening there; a freeze is not needed.
>
> Multiple transitions then get entangled.
I don't understand what you mean here. The freeze doesn't prevent
that from happening in unstable.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 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)
Reply to: