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

Re: Bug#896667: transition: r-base-3.5



Control: tags -1 confirmed

On 28/05/18 15:00, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 28/05/18 14:32, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>>
>> On 28 May 2018 at 14:08, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> | Control: tags -1 - confirmed
>> | 
>> | On 28/05/18 13:08, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> | > Control: tags -1 confirmed
>> | > 
>> | > On 23/04/18 13:57, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
>> | >> Package: release.debian.org
>> | >> Severity: normal
>> | >> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
>> | >> Usertags: transition
>> | >> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-r@lists.debian.org
>> | >>
>> | >> Dear Release Team,
>> | >>
>> | >> Please schedule a transition for R 3.5, which has just been uploaded to
>> | >> experimental.
>> | >>
>> | >> Due to changes in R internals, all R extension packages must be recompiled,
>> | >> that is 573 packages (of which 260 are arch:all, and will therefore need
>> | >> sourceful uploads).
>> | >>
>> | >> The transition will be managed jointly by Dirk Eddelbuettel and the Debian R
>> | >> Packages Team¹ (which ideally should be kept in CC of replies).
>> | >>
>> | >> We have not tried to recompile the 500+ packages, but we don’t expect any major
>> | >> issue. And should some arise, we stand ready to fix them.
>> | > 
>> | > Go ahead with the transition.
>> | 
>> | NACK. Let's wait for the curl transition, as this would clash with that one.
>>
>> What is your expectation concerning the timeline?
>>
>> R 3.5.0 is already over one month old. It would be good to have the
>> transition going.
> 
> This can go after the curl transition, which has just started. So whatever that
> takes, which will depend on whether any packages fail to build and how long it
> takes to solve them. curl was waiting for longer and is blocking other
> transitions, so that's why it went first, but after that there should be no
> blockers for R 3.5.

curl migrated to testing today. Please go ahead with R 3.5.

Emilio


Reply to: