On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 08:53:49AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > On 9 September 2017 at 14:12, Sébastien Villemot wrote: > | On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 06:48:12AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > | > > | > On 9 September 2017 at 06:44, Niels Thykier wrote: > | > | Thanks to Sébastien and Andreas for explaining the issue. > | > > | > Well, was it "explained" ? They both raised and stressed a hypothetical > | > issue: That "there might be siutations where a partial upgrade breaks" > | > > | > We don't actually know whether this holds. This R 3.4.* change was not a > | > full-fledged ABI change. > | > | I made the following experiment: > | > | - started from a minimal stretch chroot > | - installed r-base and r-cran-spatial > | - upgraded r-base to the version from sid (but not r-cran-spatial) > > Come one. That's the situation of EVERY known bug in testing fixed in > unstable. No it’s not the same. In the present case, (partially-)upgrading to unstable *introduces* a bug. > I am done. This way too dogmatic for my taste. I feel sorry about the users > who will not get access to current, updated and bug free version of R because > of this. A wrong decision. I don’t want to argue about the soundness of this technical requirement. I am just interested in having this issue sorted out, since I am a R user and package maintainer. As already stated in <20170906144810.f663j3gykjcxocds@villemot.name>, I am willing to help by generating the correct list of Breaks that, if incorporated in the debian/control of r-base, would solve the issue. But since I do not want to waste my time, I first need to be sure that you would accept such a patch. Best, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature