On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 08:23:30AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 03:25:56PM +0200, Johannes Ranke wrote: > > > The whole bug report was, pardon my French, complete and utter nonsense. > > > > Wow. Complete and utter. A bug report affecting 100+ packages that was merged > > with two independent bug reports (861684, 862969). And that took from 27 April > > to 9 September to get fixed. I think the French are more friendly than your > > terminology here :) I will shut up now. Have a good day everyone! > > Dirk, in this transition process you told a lot of people not nice words > instead of following the established transition process in Debian. If I > were you I would make myself comfortable with the transition process > inside Debian in order to avoid a lot of personal friction. I basically agree with what Johannes and Andreas said (including their praise of your work as maintainer of the R packages). I want to add that it’s still possible and easy to have R migrate from unstable to testing (and using a more robust way that adding 100+ Breaks). It consists in bumping the "r-api-3" value to "r-api-3.4", or "r-api-3a" (or basically whatever you want, as long as it is different from previous values). This takes less than 5 minutes of your time, is clean and robust, and solves the whole issue. I know you don’t consider this issue as an ABI break, but this is a rather theoretical debate. In practice this proposed change does the job. Then the Release Team will schedule binNMUs for all R reverse dependencies, and everything will migrate to testing. Of course this means more rebuilds than strictly necessary, but who cares?… computing resources are cheap. Best, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature