Bug#1023731: Any idea why debci picks old versions (Was: Bug#1023731: BioC Transition blocked by new dependencies)

[Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org>]

Hi Paul,

Am Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 08:23:12PM +0100 schrieb Paul Gevers:
> > I'm constantly checking the tracker page of r-bioc-biocgenerics[1] to
> > follow the transition status.  I realised that debci picks old, not yet
> > fixed package versions like:
> > 
> >    r-bioc-biocfilecache/2.4.0+dfsg-1 while 2.4.0+dfsg-2 is in unstable
> >    r-bioc-biocsingular/1.12.0+ds-1   while 1.14.0+ds-2 is in unstable
> >    (I've just uploaded fixed r-bioc-bluster - lets see what will be picked)
> >    r-bioc-edaseq/2.30.0+dfsg-1 while 2.32.0+dfsg-2 is in unstable
> 
> It's not debci that picks them, but rather britney (our migration software)
> that doesn't know from the information it uses that r-bioc-biocgenerics from
> unstable makes r-bioc-biocfilecache from testing uninstallable. I haven't
> checked but I suspect that this transition is declared via Provides and this
> *might* mean that britney doesn't handle Provides ideally for this use case.
> 
> > I wonder when debci will be run with the latest versions in unstable
> > that are fixing the build issues.
> 
> *Probably* when bugs in britney regarding this use of Provides are fixed.
> For now, I'll schedule some tests manually with the Release Team
> credentials.

So you want to say, the fact that the current debci results that are
listed on the r-bioc-biocgenerics page are based on packages that are
replaced in unstable and the current packages that are fixed are not
listed with recent debci results, is due to a bug in britney?

Thanks for the manual triggers, hope this will help here

       Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de