Le mercredi 28 juin 2023 à 20:18 +0530, Nilesh Patra a écrit : > On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 02:03:12PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > Am Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 08:11:05AM +0200 schrieb Bas Couwenberg: > > > 189s DLL requires the use of native symbols > > > > I wonder, whether all those bugs against single r-* packages are > > sensible. As far as I can see we simply need a transition for > > this r-base upgrade. Am I missing something? > > You are correct. A transition is all we need. However, in case of > r-cran-epi simply adding a versioned dep on dplyr should do the trick. > (epi is not a failure in excuses for dplyr). > > I think this particular bug is sensible because without these versioned > depends, epi will fail it's tests (for instance while backporting). We > can go on closing these BRs on the fly. It would also help you track all > the dependencies a bit better. The question to answer to determine whether a transition is needed is the following: are CRAN packages compiled against R 4.2 binary- compatible with R 4.3? Or do they need a rebuild to work with 4.3? If a rebuild is needed, then this means that we have to go through a proper transition (involving the Release Team). I note that the r-base-core package Provides the virtual package r-api- 4.0 in both versions 4.2 and 4.3. So in essence, the fact that this Provides field has not been updated indicates that a transition is not needed. If it turns out that a transition is needed, then the first step is to change the Provides field of r-base-core to something like r-api-4.3. Cheers, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ https://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part