On 31/05/18 16:56, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > 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.
Yes, that sounds good. Thanks! Emilio