Re: [MoM] r-cran-nnls: please fix copyright
Hi Alba,
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 07:01:21PM +0100, Alba Crespi wrote:
> > > As you say igraph and nnls are new but the others are already packages on
> > > debian
> > > I've built the package by installing the other dependencies not yet in
> > > stable debian and it worked ok (using debuild). So I'm a bit confused.
> >
> > You need to specify these packages as Build-Depends and Depends.
> >
>
> I've added in them in the Build-Depends. In the Depends sections, as far as
> I understand from the way I've done it, it gets the dependencies
> automatically when building it.
You assume because of "${R:Depends}"?
Your assumption is *very* sensible and I have frequently considered to
fix this since it would be very simple for package maintainers and the
information should be easily obtainable. However, the variable just
injects a versioned dependency from r-base and nothing else. Sorry.
Feel free to try filing a wishlist bug report - but be prepared for a
response which is not as friendly as you usually got here on this list.
> Now fails on building because of the
> dependencies of r-cran-nnls and r-cran-igraph. Any other needed changes?
Besides the explicite dependencies no, that's fine. We simply need to
wait ...
> So in this case, when the dependencies are not yet ready, which is the
> normal procedure?
Either creating a local mirror for your pbuilder environment featuring
all dependencies and upload to new with a package created like this or
waiting until all dependencies are available. I prefer the later
solution. The rationale for this preference is in case ftpmaster might
reject one of the dependencies (for whatever reason) and you need to fix
something and this fix needs time (for instance clarifying a license
with an upstream that has vanished - see r-cran-locfit issue) a package
with unresolvable dependencies might remain in the queue. You need to
manually care for this (... and remember this fact!) and all this hassle
is IMHO not worth the effort.
So waiting is IMHO the better strategy. Remember:
Good things come to those ... who can wait. :-)
May be pressing thumbs that ftpmaster might gain back the speed of
former days where new processing took 1-3 days and not 1-3 monthes.
Thanks for your work (and understanding)
ANdreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: