Re: r-bioc-biocinstaller (Was: r-base breaks 9 autopkgtests)
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 01:08:56PM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote:
> There's nothing that Depends on r-bioc-biocinstaller, so I guess it
> could only have been installed manually.
That's wrong. R-bioc-affy and r-bioc-annotationhub depended from it
(otherwise I would not have packaged it). I'm maintaining a manually
crafted dependency graph to know what package needs to be touched first:
https://salsa.debian.org/r-pkg-team/r-bioc-000-dependency-scheme
(You can apt-get install ditaa && make or read the ditaa document
with a text viewer as well.)
> Will the Provides be
> sufficient to work on upgrades?
The Conflicts will make sure the package will be deinstalled and the
Provides / Replaces informs (previous) dependencies that everything
is OK with the dependency tree.
> > In the current situation I do not see any need to ask Dirk for anything.
>
> OK, great! As per the excuses for r-base [1], once the regressions in
> r-cran-filehash and r-cran-haplo.stats have been fixed, I will ask
> Dirk to do a no-change source-only upload to resolve the "not built on
> buildd" issue.
If those two packages are the only blockers we might consider
deactivating the tests for the moment. I'm to busy at DebConf to
do more complex stuff than simple uploads / upgrades but feel free
to "cheat" with the tests. I just activated the tests which were
never be run before so deactivating them is just restoring the
situation we had before. These should not block any transition.
Kind regards
Andreas.
> [1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=r-base
>
>
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: