On 14 November 2023 at 07:42, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | | On 14 November 2023 at 12:26, Graham Inggs wrote: | | Hi Dirk | | | | On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 at 12:01, Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> wrote: | | > Well that seems to be a) the wrong severity and b) the wrong package. | | | | Both are correct. We do not want rmatrix to migrate and break | | packages in testing. | | Doesn't 'normal' do that? I always get the shivers when I see 'serious' as I | fear that my package is at the risk of removal (which we of course Matrix | can't be 'really' given its systemic status from its "recommended" status | within R and very widespread use). | | | However, in this case, I only set the severity to match reality; | | rmatrix is already blocked from migrating due to the autopkgtest | | regressions. | | | | > We need to address the packages needing a rebuild. Mine (r-cran-lme4, | | > r-cran-rcppeigen). have been taken care of. | | | | Agreed, and rmatrix may need some new Breaks to allow the affected | | packages to migrate together. | | The issue is actually hugely problematic for CRAN and R Core, and there are | some discussions but no solutions. They do not have (formal) notions like | binary rebuild for parts where they distribute binaries, and no means of | reaching binary redistributors such as us. Oh well. At least it doesn't | happen often. | | Anyway. Now that you made it a bug I let you drive this. Upstream just made | an unrelated bugfix Matrix 1.6-3 which I just sent to unstable.
There are two known failures left which the maintainer(s) do not want to fix. As I have fixed my dependents of package Matrix, I continue to find it unfair that I am being to an open bug requiring fixes via builds in other packages that are not mine. <shrug> So I guess this bug will stay open 'forever' or until those packages get normal routine updates. Dirk | | Dirk | | -- | dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org -- dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
