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

Re: RFS: r-cran-partitions (NEW)



On Thu 30 Sep 2021 10:47:16 AM EDT, Nilesh Patra <nilesh@nileshpatra.info> wrote:
I happened to notice that you added a uversionmangle rule to convert "1.10-2" to "1.10.2"
this is not good, we are not supposed to convert hyphenations into "." for R packages,
as this goes counter-productive, for managing dependencies etc.
There has been a consensus on this already in the team.

Oops!  I didn't realize this and just made the change based Lintian's
hyphen-in-upstream-part-of-debian-changelog-version warning and reading that,
in R, '-' and '.' are equivalent for sorting version numbers.  It's even
mentioned in the old Debian R policy [1] as an option: "Alternatively, the
hyphen in the CRAN version can be translated into a dot yielding `a.b.c-d'."

We are supposed to take versions as-is with hyphenations, and let debhelper do its job.
If you agree, please ask for a reject, fix the version and I'll re-upload.

Sounds good to me!  I've fixed the version for r-cran-partitions in git:
https://salsa.debian.org/r-pkg-team/r-cran-partitions

How do I ask for a reject?  Just send an email to the FTP masters, or is there
some official way through the BTS or something?  I haven't been able to find any
documentation on how to do this for packages still in the NEW queue...

I also noticed that similar thing has been done in r-cran-sets and r-cran-orthopolynom. But I guess
its a bit too late unfortunately to change them :/
So probably you need to add an epoch at some point in time for these.

When would an epoch be necessary?  It seems like the dot/hyphen issues I'm
seeing searching through the list archives (e.g., [2]) are in the opposite
direction, i.e., upstream uses a dot in a versioned dependency when our
package uses a hyphen.

I guess my question is, would it be ok to just wait for, e.g., sets 1.1-1 to
be released to switch r-cran-sets to use a hyphen?

Thanks for noticing this!
Doug

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/12/msg02332.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-r/2018/06/msg00069.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: