Bug#1034683: r-base: new upstream release unintentionally uploaded to unstable
Hi Philip, On 21 June 2023 at 20:15, Philip Rinn wrote: | Hi, | | could we please close this bug? We released bookworm some days ago and | propagating to testing should be fine now. [It blocks R packages to propagate to | testing currently.] Thanks for the reminder. I think we had informal consensus to leave it open during the freeze leading up to the release to avoid any last minute transfer but this can now be closed -- especially as we by now have R 4.3.1 (released at the end of last week) in unstable. So closing now. Best, Dirk | Thanks | Philip | x[DELETED ATTACHMENT OpenPGP_signature, application/pgp-signature] -- dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
Bug#1034683: r-base: new upstream release unintentionally uploaded to unstable
Hi, could we please close this bug? We released bookworm some days ago and propagating to testing should be fine now. [It blocks R packages to propagate to testing currently.] Thanks Philip OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1034683: r-base: new upstream release unintentionally uploaded to unstable
Hi Simon, Thanks for the long and thoughtful and detailed reply. Just 'sitting back' will do just fine then. R releases annually in April, the 4.2.* series was just fine. We had an usual event in that R Core upstream asked (a first in ~25 years) to patch 4.2.2, hence the somewhat unusual version name 4.2.2.20220 in bookworm, it otherwise is just 4.2.2. The delta to the final release in there series, 4.2.3, is small and either is fine but we can live very well with the version that got to bookworm 'naturally'. 4.3.0 is a new one, as annual releases go the delta is also pretty small. But it can and will just wait in unstable til its time is up post bookwork release. The CRAN repo upstream is very very good about ensuring consistency 'at @HEAD' so package are generally in good shape (especially if they are kept current). I expect no surprises here. Cheers, Dirk -- dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
Bug#1034683: r-base: new upstream release unintentionally uploaded to unstable
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 at 10:51:16 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > Here I just emacs shortcut'ed to 'unstable' whereas as all others I managed > to put in 'experimental'. That included a 4.3.0rc upload a few days ago. Yeah, it's unfortunately quite an easy mistake to make. In packages that have a long-term unsuitable-for-unstable branch, I sometimes resort to putting code in debian/rules to make it intentionally FTBFS if targeting unstable (for example see libsdl3). If you happen to be doing your uploads using dgit, getting into the habit of explicitly specifying the suite you want to upload to can be helpful. For example: dgit push-source -C ../build-area/foo_1.2.3-3_source.changes experimental > | Hopefully we're close enough to the release that no further uploads of > | r-base for bookworm will be necessary. > > Yes. Please advise. What is best practices now? Upload -2 to experimental? > Or not? What action would 'close' this bug? (Disclaimer: I am not a release team member; if they ask you to revert, please pay attention to them and not me.) If you're happy with 4.2.2.20221110-2 for bookworm, and there is nothing else in the R ecosystem that needs to migrate, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the new version for unstable users and the buildds (just mis-timed), then you *probably* don't need to do anything special; you can leave it as-is, and close this bug when you are ready for 4.3.x to migrate (presumably after bookworm releases and trixie development opens). There are a few situations where you *would* need to revert: * if 4.3.0 is broken in some way that makes it bad for unstable users; * or if there is a bad bug in r-base/bookworm that needs fixing before the bookworm release; * or if there is a bad bug in another package (presumably in the R ecosystem) that needs fixing in bookworm, but building a version of that package suitable for bookworm would FTBFS or pick up a versioned r-base (>= 4.3) dependency if built against the new r-base; * or if the release team or other maintainers report that the new r-base is causing trouble for the release/migration process I don't really know how R works and whether it would normally generate versioned dependencies, so I don't know how much of this is applicable. I happened to have r-base installed and saw this change go past in apt-listchanges, but I don't use it myself, and I only have it installed because it's a build-dep for Lintian. If you need (or want) to revert, the way to achieve that would be to re-upload a package branched from 4.2.2.20221110-2, containing the 4.2.2.20221110 source code with the upstream part of its version number changed to 4.3.0+really4.2.2.20221110. For example look at the recent history of ccache, mtools or quilt. And then when the dust has settled, you would upload 4.3.1 if it's available by then, or otherwise a re-upload of 4.3.0 versioned as 4.3.0+really4.3.0; either to unstable after the bookworm release, or to experimental (extra-carefully!) sooner than that. > Also, do I need to contact the release managers to ask for a freeze on this > misfiled upload? No, there are several reasons why it won't migrate: * I opened this RC bug; * we're in hard freeze and r-base is a key package, so it won't migrate without a specific unblock; * the new version makes the autopkgtests of a bunch of other R packages regress and any one of those would be enough to prevent migration. smcv
Bug#1034683: r-base: new upstream release unintentionally uploaded to unstable
On 21 April 2023 at 10:51, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | | On 21 April 2023 at 16:23, Simon McVittie wrote: | | Source: r-base | | Version: 4.3.0-1 | | Severity: serious | | Justification: maintainer presumably considers this version to be unsuitable for bookworm | | | | > r-base (4.3.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium | | > . | | > * New upstream release (into 'experimental' while Debian is frozen) | | | | I'm assuming that mismatch between the changelog message and the header | | wasn't intentional... | | Oh noes! That was an honest mistake. I just checked my debian-installer | (replies) folder and all my uploads since March 15 went to experimental. | | Here I just emacs shortcut'ed to 'unstable' whereas as all others I managed | to put in 'experimental'. That included a 4.3.0rc upload a few days ago. | | | Hopefully we're close enough to the release that no further uploads of | | r-base for bookworm will be necessary. | | Yes. Please advise. What is best practices now? Upload -2 to experimental? | Or not? What action would 'close' this bug? | | Also, do I need to contact the release managers to ask for a freeze on this | misfiled upload? Come to think about it the fact that there is an open 'serious' bug on the package should be sufficient for it to not progress out of unstable. Dirk -- dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
Bug#1034683: r-base: new upstream release unintentionally uploaded to unstable
On 21 April 2023 at 16:23, Simon McVittie wrote: | Source: r-base | Version: 4.3.0-1 | Severity: serious | Justification: maintainer presumably considers this version to be unsuitable for bookworm | | > r-base (4.3.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium | > . | > * New upstream release (into 'experimental' while Debian is frozen) | | I'm assuming that mismatch between the changelog message and the header | wasn't intentional... Oh noes! That was an honest mistake. I just checked my debian-installer (replies) folder and all my uploads since March 15 went to experimental. Here I just emacs shortcut'ed to 'unstable' whereas as all others I managed to put in 'experimental'. That included a 4.3.0rc upload a few days ago. | Hopefully we're close enough to the release that no further uploads of | r-base for bookworm will be necessary. Yes. Please advise. What is best practices now? Upload -2 to experimental? Or not? What action would 'close' this bug? Also, do I need to contact the release managers to ask for a freeze on this misfiled upload? Dirk -- dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
Bug#1034683: r-base: new upstream release unintentionally uploaded to unstable
Source: r-base Version: 4.3.0-1 Severity: serious Justification: maintainer presumably considers this version to be unsuitable for bookworm > r-base (4.3.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium > . > * New upstream release (into 'experimental' while Debian is frozen) I'm assuming that mismatch between the changelog message and the header wasn't intentional... Hopefully we're close enough to the release that no further uploads of r-base for bookworm will be necessary. smcv
