Le jeudi 06 juillet 2023 à 21:02 +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit : > Am Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 07:08:04PM +0200 schrieb Paul Gevers: > > PS: in a private discussion I had today, we noticed that r-* packages often > > (always?) have a dependency on r-base-core with a lower limited version > > equal to the r-base-core that was used during the build. With the > > appropriate API in Provides of r-base-core, this should no longer be > > necessary and ease migrations in the future. > > Could you please give some example to make sure I understand correctly? > > > We should probably file a bug > > against dh-r (I guess) to fix that dependency. Or did we conclude that > > wrong? > > I'm not sure so please explain in more detail. dh-r was designed to put > the lowest restriction regarding the versions. I remember some > discussion some time ago that Dirk thought we should put stronger > restrictions (and he is sometimes adding version restrictions manually > that are not helpful for backporting). If I will be sure I understand > your point exactly I can check the code and the relevant discussion. > (Feel free to file a bug report about this and we can discuss it there > if you think this makes more sense.) It comes from this line: https://salsa.debian.org/r-pkg-team/dh-r/-/blob/master/dh/R.pm#L272 More precisely the “r-base-core (>= $rbase_version)” part, which imposes an unnecessarily tight restriction on the r-base-core version. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ https://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part