On 31 May 2018 at 16:15, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: | Hi, | | On 31/05/18 15:45, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: | > On 31/05/18 15:09, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | >> | >> Emilio, Seb, | >> | >> Can you confirm that now that we have | >> a) "green light" on the transition, and | >> b) the r-base package is in unstable | >> we should see binary: any packages being rebuilt -- which I do not yet | >> see. When will this start? | > | > I will start the rebuilds soon (i.e. later today). | | Scheduled now (it will take some time as it's 320 arch:any packages). | | By the way there was a problem with my suggested jdk change: the architecture | restriction is applied first, and then the first alternative is taken, so for | e.g. m68k, openjdk-10-jdk is taken as it's the first valid alternative for that | architecture. But we don't want jdk there at all. So there are two good options: | | default-jdk [!arm !hppa !kfreebsd-i386 !kfreebsd-amd64 !hurd-i386]
There must be something that makes this form not preferred as I had been using the "concretePackage | virtualPackage" form for many years. If we did this, I would not have to jump through hoops updating the package ... | | i.e. drop the openjdk-10-jdk alternative, or | | default-jdk [!arm !hppa !kfreebsd-i386 !kfreebsd-amd64 !hurd-i386] | | openjdk-10-jdk [!arm !hppa !kfreebsd-i386 !kfreebsd-amd64 !hurd-i386] ... yet the other day I needed the form with openjdk-10 (as r-cran-rjava failed with with given that "its" r-base has still used openjdk-9. So I think the second form is better. I can do a quick rebuild if you concur. | | i.e. add the architecture restriction to openjdk-10-jdk as well. | | I'd go with the former, but both should work. If you can apply one of those | changes that'd help. | | Sorry for not realising that earlier. No worries. It's just cycles :) Dirk -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org