Philipp Kern wrote: > On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:33:46PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > I cannot influence the R release cycle which happens within our freeze. As > > have a few previous R releases, and none of those created any trouble. > > Thanks for trading the R release cycle with Debian's and for delaying the > release. The harm has already been done, so somebody should probably go > and create a transition tracker for it?
IMO it's important to remember that it's fundamentally the release team that is at fault for problems here, not the R maintainer. Unstable has already been frozen for much longer than is in any way reasonable for either development of Debian, users of Debian unstable, or upstreams whose current software is either not being packaged at all or is only in experimental. I've personally seen as upstream many users suffering from problems caused by old version in unstable (and had to deal with those problems caused by Debian). And as a Debian user I've suffered in multiple cases from outdated software myself; latest was just today when I noticed that Debian's GDB version is too old to understand the default debug information format produced by current GCC. I've used Debian because I think that much of the packaging has been done well technically. But releases have never been Debian's strong point, and when you have to compile basic software like GDB yourself it's hard to recommend the distro for development either (in this case there was no working version in experimental either; having it only there would have been better than manual compiling but not in any way adequate IMO). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1364766488.1928.22.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid