Re: Bug#896667: transition: r-base-3.5
On 31/05/18 16:56, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 31 May 2018 at 16:15, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> | Hi,
> |
> | On 31/05/18 15:45, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> | > On 31/05/18 15:09, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | >>
> | >> Emilio, Seb,
> | >>
> | >> Can you confirm that now that we have
> | >> a) "green light" on the transition, and
> | >> b) the r-base package is in unstable
> | >> we should see binary: any packages being rebuilt -- which I do not yet
> | >> see. When will this start?
> | >
> | > I will start the rebuilds soon (i.e. later today).
> |
> | Scheduled now (it will take some time as it's 320 arch:any packages).
> |
> | By the way there was a problem with my suggested jdk change: the architecture
> | restriction is applied first, and then the first alternative is taken, so for
> | e.g. m68k, openjdk-10-jdk is taken as it's the first valid alternative for that
> | architecture. But we don't want jdk there at all. So there are two good options:
> |
> | default-jdk [!arm !hppa !kfreebsd-i386 !kfreebsd-amd64 !hurd-i386]
>
> There must be something that makes this form not preferred as I had been
> using the "concretePackage | virtualPackage" form for many years.
>
> If we did this, I would not have to jump through hoops updating the package ...
> |
> | i.e. drop the openjdk-10-jdk alternative, or
> |
> | default-jdk [!arm !hppa !kfreebsd-i386 !kfreebsd-amd64 !hurd-i386] |
> | openjdk-10-jdk [!arm !hppa !kfreebsd-i386 !kfreebsd-amd64 !hurd-i386]
>
> ... yet the other day I needed the form with openjdk-10 (as r-cran-rjava
> failed with with given that "its" r-base has still used openjdk-9.
>
> So I think the second form is better. I can do a quick rebuild if you concur.
Yes, that sounds good. Thanks!
Emilio
Reply to: