Graham,
On 13 July 2023 at 18:59, Graham Inggs wrote:
| I believe the attached patch should do the trick. It's basically
| Paul's list from message #210, plus r-cran-interval and
| r-cran-maldiquant. I've also used a << relationship against the
| versions in unstable, and appended a tilde at
Hi Dirk
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 16:25, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Sounds good, and thanks for the assist! I should be able to provide a pretty
> quick turn-around.
I believe the attached patch should do the trick. It's basically
Paul's list from message #210, plus r-cran-interval and
Hi Graham,
On 13 July 2023 at 11:14, Graham Inggs wrote:
| On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 at 19:07, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > On 12 July 2023 at 19:47, Paul Gevers wrote:
| > | Yes, you only need to carry the Breaks until in the next release. So
| > | every Breaks that's present in the r-base package
Hi Dirk
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 at 19:07, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On 12 July 2023 at 19:47, Paul Gevers wrote:
> | On 12-07-2023 16:02, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | > I can add the Breaks as a 'best of the worse alternative'. And, I
> presume, I
> | > can remove the existing four-year breaks?
Hi Paul,
On 12 July 2023 at 19:47, Paul Gevers wrote:
| On 12-07-2023 16:02, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > I can add the Breaks as a 'best of the worse alternative'. And, I presume, I
| > can remove the existing four-year breaks? [1]
|
| Yes, you only need to carry the Breaks until in the next
Hi,
On 12-07-2023 16:02, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
I can add the Breaks as a 'best of the worse alternative'. And, I presume, I
can remove the existing four-year breaks? [1]
Yes, you only need to carry the Breaks until in the next release. So
every Breaks that's present in the r-base package
Hi Paul,
On 11 July 2023 at 20:36, Paul Gevers wrote:
| On 11-07-2023 02:43, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| I'm totally on board for technical excellence, although I think we have
| different things in mind when we say that.
|
| In Debian, with more QA than we ever had before, we're finding a
Hi Dirk,
On 11-07-2023 02:43, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
I still have hopes that we can let technical excellence rule and not require
blunt instruments such as forced recompilation.
I'm totally on board for technical excellence, although I think we have
different things in mind when we say
On 10 July 2023 at 19:43, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| Someone simply didn't update our Debian package, so it lacks this change and
| fingers point at r-base when the fault, if there is one, is to let our
| package slip behind a compilation and code standard established at CRAN for
| the R 4.3.0
Paul,
Here is a case in point from looking at the current excluses list (which is
by now indeed a little shorter).
One package that jumps out is r-cran-maldiquant. We are at version 1.22, with
Debian build 1.22-1.
But one second at the CRAN site and the page for the package shows that it is
Hi Dirk,
On 09-07-2023 21:09, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
So this is where R 4.3.[01] will possibly break with some older packages.
But the fix is simple because when R 4.3.0 came out all packages at CRAN
complied. We need to have current packages that correspond to the R 4.3.0
standard.
(If one
Hi,
On 09-07-2023 21:09, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| I don't understand this then. For several packages we're seeing failures
| in testing even if we only use r-base from unstable and everything else
| from testing to run the test. They pass with a rebuild r-cran-fnn and/or
| a rebuild and
Hi Paul,
On 9 July 2023 at 20:11, Paul Gevers wrote:
| On 09-07-2023 18:41, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > On 9 July 2023 at 17:40, Paul Gevers wrote:
| > | Did we already discuss that r-cran-ps also seems to be impacted by the
| > | r-base change of the symbols thingy, as can be seen in
Hi Dirk,
Thanks.
On 09-07-2023 18:41, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 9 July 2023 at 17:40, Paul Gevers wrote:
| Did we already discuss that r-cran-ps also seems to be impacted by the
| r-base change of the symbols thingy, as can be seen in r-cran-xopen [1].
Correct me if I am wrong but the
On 9 July 2023 at 11:41, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| For spacetime and stars I suspect (based on past experience) possible
| interaction from the underlying graphics libraries.
Absent-minded typing error: "geospatial", of course. Not "graphics".
Dirk
--
dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel
Paul,
On 9 July 2023 at 17:40, Paul Gevers wrote:
| Did we already discuss that r-cran-ps also seems to be impacted by the
| r-base change of the symbols thingy, as can be seen in r-cran-xopen [1].
Correct me if I am wrong but the "symbols thingy" was not a change in R 4.2.*
to R 4.3.*. It
Hi,
On 09-07-2023 16:20, Andreas Tille wrote:
I'm working my through the list and the ppc64el ci workers have a bit of
backlog; we're getting somewhere, but I'm think I'm still also seeing
different failure modes than the graphics engine, tibble and dplyr.
I admit the only chance I personally
Am Sat, Jul 08, 2023 at 10:35:17PM +0200 schrieb Paul Gevers:
> Indeed, I think the pattern is that if we test in testing, with r-cran from
> unstable and r-cran-tibble from testing it fails, but with r-cran from
> unstable and r-cran-tibble from unstable, it works.
>
> I'm working my through the
Hi,
On 06-07-2023 21:18, Andreas Tille wrote:
Am Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 08:28:45PM +0200 schrieb Paul Gevers:
On 06-07-2023 19:08, Paul Gevers wrote:
I'm seeing in several tests where things seem to work when r-cran-tibble
from unstable
Hi,
Am Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 08:28:45PM +0200 schrieb Paul Gevers:
> On 06-07-2023 19:08, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > Yes, we'll take care of that where it looks sane to do so (examples of
> > that are r-cran-epi); I'll manually schedule the "combined" tests, such
> > that they disappear from the
20 matches
Mail list logo
