On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 07:04:51AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 28 September 2017 at 13:20, Sébastien Villemot wrote: > | On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:53:10PM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote: > | > On 28/09/2017 12:28, Sébastien Villemot wrote: > | > > Note that there are many arch:all R packages that will need sourceful upload > | > > (they are easy to identify on the transition tracker whose URL is above). > | > > | > Besides r-cran-nlp which doesn't show up in the tracker, I've found several > | > other arch:all packages that don't depend on r-api-3, but do pick up a > | > dependency on r-api-3.4 after a rebuild: > | > | This makes me wonder whether arch:all packages really need a dependency on r-api-*. > | > | If this value really tracks an API, as advertised, it makes sense. But if it > | actually tracks an ABI, as in the present case, then this situation is > | suboptimal and complicates transition. > | > | Maybe the best solution would therefore be to dissociate API and ABI tracking. > | > | Moreover, packages automatically pick up a versioned dependency on r-base-core. > | But this should not be necessary since we now have ABI tracking. It makes > | dependencies uselessly tight. > | > | Anyways, these (potential) improvements should probably wait for the next > | transition (planned in April if I understand correctly). > > There transitions, and then there are transitions. Let me explain: > > - right now a subset of 'source: any' package needs a rebuild; here we could > in fact discuss leaving 'source: all' out > > - R 3.5.0 will need a rebuild of all 'source: any' packages > > - In the past we rebuilds for nonAPI reasons: reorganisation of R's internal > help system (and internal file format) was one > > So we may as well through the big mantle of the so-called "API" transition > around all dependent packages. But we don't _have to_ right now. > > Can be argued either way. Do as you see fit. I now understand that we ideally need two API/ABI-like values instead of one: - one that is bumped when only arch:any packages need to be rebuilt - the other one that is bumped when both arch:any and arch:all packages should be rebuilt The first value would appear in the Depends of arch:any package, but not of arch:all ones; the second value would appear in the Depends of both arch:any and arch:all. Because, for this transition and for the next one (in April), we will have to make sourceful uploads of ~170 arch:all packages… that actually do not need to be rebuilt. And this is very painful because it must be done manually (contrary to rebuilds of arch:any packages that can be trigerred easily). If we adopted this scheme right now, that would save us a lot of work for the April transition (but not for this one, because we first have to convert arch:all packages to the new scheme). Please tell me what you think. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature