Hi Paul, Am Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 07:48:16AM +0200 schrieb Paul Gevers: > Anytime is good to ask for a transition, particularly when the transition is > already ongoing.
:-) > I don't think it should surprise anyone that we prefer it to be done right. > Our preference is for option 1. Thanks for confirming. > However, if you can't get the pieces for > that option in place in a reasonable time (say, a week or two, take some > time to try), I think my piece is ready. We just need to decide about a proper name of the virtual package. I'll inject this into my proof of concept change of dh-r. Than Dirk needs to upload another r-base package containing the r-graphics-api-VERSION. This should not be a hard thing to do - Dirk just stayed silent about this change since we are discussing it. > then we prefer to get *this* transition out of the way by > means of option 2. I personally think that we are in a good situation in the beginning of the release cycle to do things right, which means option 1. But it depends from the r-base maintainer to cooperate here. > I don't think it's in anybodies interest to waste time on > option 3. ACK. I told Bas so who had spent quite some time to file bugs against lots of r-cran-* packages which are all a consequence of the not-yet-transition. > > Sorry that this transition bug is that complex. I would have loved if > > it would went more coordinated but unfortunately that's not in my hands > > and I simply try to reassemble the pieces. > > Thanks for communicating with us, much appreciated. Its always a pleasure to communicate with you. ;-) > I'll try to set a placeholder transition tracker up soon; for now, by lack > of something better, will reflect option 2. We can update that once we have > the pieces for option 1. Thanks a lot Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de