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

Bug#868558: nmu: multiple r-* packages



Control: tags -1 wontfix

Dirk Eddelbuettel:
> 
> On 9 September 2017 at 01:31, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> | On 2017-09-08 22:49, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | > I still maintain that this is a useless "academic" consideration.  If users
> | > want to corrupt their systems by only upgrading one package I will not stop
> | > them.  They can simply fix them by also upgrading the package left behind.
> | 
> | If the package dependencies are not strict enough and allow known broken 
> | package combinations to be installed (without any --force switch), it's 
> | our fault, not the user.
> | 
> | > I aim for 'apt-get dist-upgrade' doing the right thing for them. It will
> | > automate this.
> | 
> | Users running testing or sid are much more likely to perform partial
> | upgrades.
> | Or imagine someone backporting r-base 3.4.1 to stretch ... Breaks will
> | really help here.
> | 
> | But let's get back on the topic.
> | 
> | I think a similar example to what you want to achive is #874413 + 
> | #873791. This is a ABI break in python (some internal module was 
> | removed), which requires a bunch of binNMUs. In addition to this, there 
> | were Breaks added in some core python packages (e.g. libpython2.7-
> | stdlib) against all the packages that used the removed ABI.
> | 
> | [...]
> 

Hi,

Thanks to Sébastien and Andreas for explaining the issue.

> That is madness, and AFAIUI also wrong (as you miss the package which might
> have been in the list, but aren't as they may have gotten upgraded by now).
> 

I appreciate that the Breaks-list is fragile; even more so at this scale
plus it needs to filter on binNMU versions (which can differ between
architectures).  However, we will need a solution for the "partial
upgrades" issue before r-base can migrate.

You may not like the "partial upgrades must work" principle or how it is
implemented, but please keep in mind that we (as a distribution and our
users) rely on it in many areas to ensure that every thing works as
intended.

> I do not plan to add this to r-base-core.  We already waited five month since
> April, what are another seven til the next release of R.
> 
> Dirk
>  
> [...]

That is fine.  Then (to my knowledge) your only option is an "ABI bump".
 Until one of these solutions is applied, this bug is "wontfix" and
r-base is blocked from migrating to testing.

Thanks,
~Niels



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: