On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 09:39:37AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 9 September 2017 at 16:18, Sébastien Villemot wrote: > | But since I do not want to waste my time, I first need to be sure that you would > | accept such a patch. > > Re-read > > http://eddelbuettel.github.io/rcppapt/binnmuAfterR340.html > > and construct (using R and my RcppAPT packages) the set of packages that > > - are reverse depends of r-base-core in Debian (just over 500+ iirc) > - have a src/ directory, ie are Archicture: any > - have .C or .Fortran calls below R/ > - use dynamic symbol registration > - but ignore whether they have been rebuilt > > so it would differ from my analysis. I reckon that you would end up with > maybe 100 to 150 (a guess) packages for which you would need a Breaks: > declaration. Thanks for the pointers and for the explanation. Indeed the list will be quite long, keeping in mind that some packages may appear several times with architecture qualifiers if version numbers differ across architectures (due for example to different binNMU version suffixes). > Now I, as maintainer of r-base, feel that I would not serve my users with the > added fragility of 100+ breaks statements. > > But you are of course free to create a locally patched package for local > tests and users. We know how quickly a local apt repo can be created. As > having this functionality seems rather important to you (while I remain more > than sceptical) I suggest you work on that in such a local package. Well, I am interested in having this fixed in Debian, not in a local package or repository. So I understand from your message that I cannot help. Best, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature