Re: Bug#955211: release.debian.org: Transition r-base for 4.0.0
On 29 May 2020 at 07:51, Dylan Aïssi wrote:
| Hi,
|
| Le jeu. 28 mai 2020 à 18:58, Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org> a écrit :
| >
| > Thanks everybody for the help with the transition: 4.0.0-3 is now in testing.
| >
|
| \o/
|
| Both transition trackers (r-api-4.0 and r-api-bioc-3.11) were not very
| useful to determine the order to update Bioconductor packages.
| Some Bioconductor packages were green in the first tracker but red in
| the second one, because they were automatically rebuild without an
| upgrade.
| So, it was not possible to use the first tracker to follow the upgrade
| order of Bioconductor packages.
| And the second tracker did not consider the r-api-4.0 rebuild order,
| so some packages in the first levels were not buildable until the
| dependency chain was ready for r-api-4.0.
|
| Next time there is a transition with these two r-api virtual packages,
| we should use a unique ben file for them, something like this:
|
| title = "r-api";
| is_affected = .depends ~ "r-api-3.5" | .depends ~ "r-api-4.0" |
| .depends ~ "r-api-bioc-3.10" | .depends ~ "r-api-bioc-3.11";
| is_good = .depends ~ "r-api-4.0" | .depends ~ "r-api-bioc-3.11";
| is_bad = .depends ~ "r-api-3.5" | .depends ~ "r-api-bioc-3.10";
Good point. Probably worth trying if the next transition once again has BioC
within a week (which is common).
Nobody knows what will be in R 4.1.0 next year. With some luck we may get by
without a transition (a la R 3.6.0).
Cheers, Dirk
--
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org
Reply to: