Re: Matrix update triggering need for four rebuilds
On 14 November 2023 at 11:06, Andreas Tille wrote:
| Am Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 07:23:06AM -0600 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
| > Most of these are not in Debian but I think we need binary rebuilds of
| >
| > irlba because of headers
| > OpenMx because of headers, a new upstream 2.21.10 is out too
| > TMB because of headers
|
| Uploaded yesterday since I realised the need.
Thank you!
The rest is an open issue and not clear. I had a number of emails with both
the active maintainer of Matrix (Mikael) who is considering declaring an API
version at the package level, and one of the maintainers of an affected
package (my colleague who is upstream for SeuratObject which was bitten by
the S4 signature/namespace caching). I am also in some emails with CRAN and
R Core but no resolution there.
So for now this is "just an unfortunate one-off" and not yet something ready
for a more systematic change.
| > MatrixModels because of S4 caching
| >
| > I would appreciate it if someone could tickle rebuilds. To me a quick
| > informal touch of debian/changelog would do; if someone thinks this needs a
| > formal transition go for it.
|
| In principle upgrading four packages at request is cheap. However, I
| have the feeling that we are technically more safe if we would introduce
| some r-tmb-api which would technically raise a signal for tmb
| dependencies. I've "hacked" some workaround into r-cran-tmb since I
| was motivated by the github issue discussing the relation to Matrix[1]
| to fix a very specifix Matrix version. I've put the release team in
| CC since they were involved into the according discussion.
I did not follow this closely but was that rather 'change in TMB driving
issues in glmmTMB and alike' whereas this email is about 'TMB as a client of
Matrix' ?
Dirk
--
dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org
Reply to: