Re: Update on R 3.0.0 migration (Was: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)
On 07.04.2013 03:07, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Ah, thanks Chris, I wasn't aware of that! But then it seems to me
that the correct lines should be:
Build-Depends: ..., r-base-dev, ...
[...]
Depends: ..., ${R:Depends}, ...
as the source package is *not* dependent upon the R version, only the
binary package resulting from it; this will aid any backporters, for
example.
No, you have to Build-Depend on the minimal R version your package needs.
A (probably bad) example: sactterelot3d needs R = 2.7.0 so my Build-Depends is:
Build-Depends: debhelper (= 9), cdbs, r-base-dev (= 2.7.0)
Philip
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/516139ab.9030...@gmx.net
Re: Update on R 3.0.0 migration (Was: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 11:17:31AM +0200, Philip Rinn wrote:
On 07.04.2013 03:07, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Ah, thanks Chris, I wasn't aware of that! But then it seems to me
that the correct lines should be:
Build-Depends: ..., r-base-dev, ...
[...]
Depends: ..., ${R:Depends}, ...
as the source package is *not* dependent upon the R version, only the
binary package resulting from it; this will aid any backporters, for
example.
No, you have to Build-Depend on the minimal R version your package needs.
A (probably bad) example: sactterelot3d needs R = 2.7.0 so my Build-Depends
is:
Build-Depends: debhelper (= 9), cdbs, r-base-dev (= 2.7.0)
Yes, indeed. My bad. But it does *not* need to depend on r-base-dev
(= 3.0.0) unless the package actually requires 3.0.0 functionality.
Uploading erm 0.14-0-6 with the correct build-time dependencies;
raschsampler has no specified R version dependency, so leaving that
one unspecified.
Julian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130407120102.gb25...@d-and-j.net
Re: Update on R 3.0.0 migration (Was: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)
On 7 April 2013 at 13:01, Julian Gilbey wrote:
| On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 11:17:31AM +0200, Philip Rinn wrote:
| On 07.04.2013 03:07, Julian Gilbey wrote:
| Ah, thanks Chris, I wasn't aware of that! But then it seems to me
| that the correct lines should be:
|
| Build-Depends: ..., r-base-dev, ...
| [...]
| Depends: ..., ${R:Depends}, ...
|
| as the source package is *not* dependent upon the R version, only the
| binary package resulting from it; this will aid any backporters, for
| example.
| No, you have to Build-Depend on the minimal R version your package needs.
| A (probably bad) example: sactterelot3d needs R = 2.7.0 so my
Build-Depends is:
|
| Build-Depends: debhelper (= 9), cdbs, r-base-dev (= 2.7.0)
|
| Yes, indeed. My bad. But it does *not* need to depend on r-base-dev
| (= 3.0.0) unless the package actually requires 3.0.0 functionality.
And we really do sometimes have the superset as R also imposes. Right now
the only reason we are rebuilding is ... so that R (at run-time, when loading
the package) sees it as being produced by R (= 3.0.0).
| Uploading erm 0.14-0-6 with the correct build-time dependencies;
| raschsampler has no specified R version dependency, so leaving that
| one unspecified.
I still think that is wrong but you ipso-facto get the right thing to
happen. But for my packages, I do make this explicit.
Dirk
--
Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20833.31680.984007.402...@max.nulle.part
Re: Update on R 3.0.0 migration (Was: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 09:04:41PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
First off, let me apologize. I clearly did this the wrong way and should have
contacted -release and -devel beforehand. My bad -- I'm sorry for extra work
this created for the release managers and maintainer, particularly at this
time.
R 3.0.0 was released on April 3 as scheduled. As usual, I built a package the
morning of, and all build daemons are current. (There was also an unrelated
bug which is why were at 3.0.0-2.) The release team kindly put a block on
it, so it will make it into testing. Good.
[...]
So 127 packages are already taken care of. On the other hand, we still have
~50 packages needing work:
[...]
R print(todo[ order(todo[,2]), ], row.names=FALSE)
pkg maint
r-cran-erm j...@debian.org
r-cran-raschsampler j...@debian.org
I uploaded these to unstable on Friday lunchtime, and they were
accepted into unstable on Friday afternoon; I'm unclear why they are
still in your list? Did I do something wrong?
Oh yes, I clearly did. Even though I built it in a chroot with
r-base-dev 3.0.0-2 installed, I forgot to update the Depends lines in
the control files.
So something doesn't make sense somewhere: if my package doesn't care
which version of R it's building against, but R itself cares, then
surely there should be some way of querying r-base-dev during the
build process to enquire which version is required? It is almost
certainly too late to do anything about this for wheezy, but it would
be good to think about doing something for wheezy+1. Ideally, this
would be by creating a misc substvar so that instead of having to
specify the version of r-base-core in the Depends: field, it could be
specified just as ${misc:Depends} and then filled in automatically.
Anyway, I'm rebuilding them now with the dependencies updated to
3.0.0-2.
Julian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130406205527.gb32...@d-and-j.net
Re: Update on R 3.0.0 migration (Was: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Julian Gilbey j...@debian.org wrote:
So something doesn't make sense somewhere: if my package doesn't care
which version of R it's building against, but R itself cares, then
surely there should be some way of querying r-base-dev during the
build process to enquire which version is required? It is almost
certainly too late to do anything about this for wheezy, but it would
be good to think about doing something for wheezy+1. Ideally, this
would be by creating a misc substvar so that instead of having to
specify the version of r-base-core in the Depends: field, it could be
specified just as ${misc:Depends} and then filled in automatically.
If you're using cdbs and r-cran.mk in debian/rules, you can add
Depends: ${R:Depends} to debian/control to pick up the current binary
dependency. I've migrated almost all of my packages over and it makes
life easier.
Probably down the road it'd be good to create some lintian checks for
things like this dependency. (The holy grail would be to verify build
dependencies and binary dependencies against the upstream
DESCRIPTION.)
Chris
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/canjczgjhpisu3aznvcgopavjqftofp12hn+4pqyc2m4thds...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Update on R 3.0.0 migration (Was: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)
On 6 April 2013 at 19:30, Chris Lawrence wrote:
| On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Julian Gilbey j...@debian.org wrote:
| So something doesn't make sense somewhere: if my package doesn't care
| which version of R it's building against, but R itself cares, then
| surely there should be some way of querying r-base-dev during the
| build process to enquire which version is required? It is almost
| certainly too late to do anything about this for wheezy, but it would
| be good to think about doing something for wheezy+1. Ideally, this
| would be by creating a misc substvar so that instead of having to
| specify the version of r-base-core in the Depends: field, it could be
| specified just as ${misc:Depends} and then filled in automatically.
|
| If you're using cdbs and r-cran.mk in debian/rules, you can add
| Depends: ${R:Depends} to debian/control to pick up the current binary
| dependency. I've migrated almost all of my packages over and it makes
| life easier.
Right. What Chris said. This is something Andreas and Charles have pushed
for and which most of the 150+ r-cran-packages now use. One example from one
of my 100-ish r-cran-* packages:
Build-Depends: debhelper (= 7), r-base-dev (= 3.0.0), cdbs
[...]
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${R:Depends}
The Build-Depends: edit is manual.
The one in Depends: no longer is. That is useful.
Dirk
--
Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20832.49748.764779.43...@max.nulle.part
Re: Update on R 3.0.0 migration (Was: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)
On 6 April 2013 at 21:55, Julian Gilbey wrote:
| R print(todo[ order(todo[,2]), ], row.names=FALSE)
| pkg
maint
| r-cran-erm
j...@debian.org
| r-cran-raschsampler
j...@debian.org
|
| I uploaded these to unstable on Friday lunchtime, and they were
| accepted into unstable on Friday afternoon; I'm unclear why they are
| still in your list? Did I do something wrong?
|
| Oh yes, I clearly did. Even though I built it in a chroot with
| r-base-dev 3.0.0-2 installed, I forgot to update the Depends lines in
| the control files.
|
| So something doesn't make sense somewhere: if my package doesn't care
| which version of R it's building against, but R itself cares, then
| surely there should be some way of querying r-base-dev during the
Dunno -- we only have one r-base-core / r-base-dev. I think if you had
updated you pbuilder chroot, you would have gotten the new R -- satisfying
both the Depends you had, and the Depends you should have had.
| build process to enquire which version is required? It is almost
| certainly too late to do anything about this for wheezy, but it would
| be good to think about doing something for wheezy+1. Ideally, this
| would be by creating a misc substvar so that instead of having to
| specify the version of r-base-core in the Depends: field, it could be
| specified just as ${misc:Depends} and then filled in automatically.
If someone could contribute this...
| Anyway, I'm rebuilding them now with the dependencies updated to
| 3.0.0-2.
Thanks.
Dirk
--
Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20832.49579.180499.982...@max.nulle.part
Re: Update on R 3.0.0 migration (Was: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 07:48:20PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| If you're using cdbs and r-cran.mk in debian/rules, you can add
| Depends: ${R:Depends} to debian/control to pick up the current binary
| dependency. I've migrated almost all of my packages over and it makes
| life easier.
Right. What Chris said. This is something Andreas and Charles have pushed
for and which most of the 150+ r-cran-packages now use. One example from one
of my 100-ish r-cran-* packages:
Ah, cool!
Build-Depends: debhelper (= 7), r-base-dev (= 3.0.0), cdbs
[...]
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${R:Depends}
The Build-Depends: edit is manual.
The one in Depends: no longer is. That is useful.
Ah, thanks Chris, I wasn't aware of that! But then it seems to me
that the correct lines should be:
Build-Depends: ..., r-base-dev, ...
[...]
Depends: ..., ${R:Depends}, ...
as the source package is *not* dependent upon the R version, only the
binary package resulting from it; this will aid any backporters, for
example.
Julian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130407010724.ga24...@d-and-j.net
