Hi Nilesh, Am Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 10:06:02PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: > 1. rstan has got a lot of reverse-build-deps and reverse-deps > and those reversd-deps have further more of them. rstan is kind of an > important package in that sense, and dropping 32-bit arch for this would > mean filing arch specific rm bugs for a lot of R packages, and I'm quite > un-happy with the amount of noise that it will potentially create.
I'm aware of this since I'm afraid sooner or later we have to go this step route. > As you may see, the list will get long at some point. > > 2. We recently packages shiny-server, and there are people who would > like to run it on a single board computer (like rpi). On a quick search > I even managed to find a blog post about the same[1]. Now, these run on > debian armhf and armel mostly, therefore having r-packages support it > would be good. On the other hand that's a pretty good argument which is perfectly convincing for me. > 3. Removing this package from 32-bit will increase quite a bit of > entropy across many cran packages that we have with some of the packages > supporting 32-bit and a bunch of packages that do not. > > I do not have a very strong opinion for keeping it, and if keeping > 32-bit support is making your life un-necessarily and extremely hard, > drop it by all means. But I do think we should consider keeping support > when it is a possibility. > I'd have without a second thought agreed to have dropped support for a > debian-med team package had you asked, since most of those packages are > leaf packages and supporting 32-bit is irrelevant for most > bioinformatics cases, but I do not think I could say the same about R. I confirm it makes perfectly sense to me to keep general R support for 32bit. > Let me know what you think. I think you have a valid point to apply the patch that might save 32bit support for rstan. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de