On 28 June 2023 at 14:03, Andreas Tille wrote: | Am Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 08:11:05AM +0200 schrieb Bas Couwenberg: | > 189s DLL requires the use of native symbols | | I wonder, whether all those bugs against single r-* packages are | sensible.
Yes they are. Those are bugs in the packages holding up the r-base package. So I appreciate e.g. the bug report #1039633 against r-bioc-bioccheck which happens to be the first package in the absurdly long list of 'excuses' against r-base. (I didn't bother checking all other ones. I clicked on one or two, they do not make sense to me.) | As far as I can see we simply need a transition for this r-base upgrade. | Am I missing something? We go through this each release cycle. You believe you know R and CRAN packages better than R Core and CRAN. Generally speaking, that is not true. We do find occassional bugs because we run a wider hardware span but most of the time we are just creating busy work for ourselve. Dirk PS I continue to note that you can in fact trust CRAN if you do your homework and don't randomly mix current and not-current packages. An illustration is provided by r2u project which contains about 2 x 20k binaries (for amd64) covering each of the two most recent LTS releases as full `apt` binaries. It can be done. See https://eddelbuettel.github.io/r2u. It had shipped over 5 million .deb packages in just over a year, and ships at least 10k each day. Lots of automated CI jobs run it each day. You *can* and *should* trust the CRAN dependency network. -- dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org