Bug#1054657: transition: r-bioc-biocgenerics

[Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>]

On 2023-11-10 17:43:43 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Hi Paul and everybody,
> 
> we are finding a way to compare the R dependencies of the Bioconductor
> packages in Debian and in Bioc 3.18.  It uncovers some core packages
> introduced in Bioc 3.17, but which only start to have
> reverse-dependencies in 3.18, meaning that they are not in Debian yet
> since we did not have a reason to package them at that time.
> 
> It seems that I was too confident that no new core dependencies would be
> introduced, and I feel guilty for that.  Still I need to add that
> despite the stress on both sides, I really would like no not be told "We
> do not care about [the information you sent]" again, while "I am sorry
> but I do not see the relevance" or "I am sorry but this is not enough"
> is so much more informative and less conflictual.  I did appreciate a lot
> the care you took in expressing your criticisms in your email yesterday.

I am sorry that my terse mail crossed you the wrong way.

I am afraid that your first paragraph keeps me confused and I wonder if
we are talking past each other. For this transition we are interested in
packages that have to go through NEW since they are new (Build-)Depends
of packages involved in the r-bioc-transition. New reverse dependencies,
i.e., NEW packages that depend on packages that are part of the
transition, but are not (Build-)Depends of the current set of packages
in the archive, do not affect this transition.

Can you please clarify whether you are talking about new dependencies or
reverse dependencies above? Thanks.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher