On 27 April 2017 at 23:41, Charles Plessy wrote: | Le Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:24:18AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit : | > | > On 27 April 2017 at 13:58, Johannes Ranke wrote: | > | Am Donnerstag, 27. April 2017, 06:32:13 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel: | > | > On 27 April 2017 at 12:01, Johannes Ranke wrote: | > | | > | > This may be a use case for r-api-4. Or not as it doesn't break _all_ | > | > packages so I am not sure we should force _all_ packages to be rebuilt. | > | > | > | > Can we not find the ones that use .C and .Fortran ? | > | | > | I do not understand how the use of r-api-x works, but my feeling is that it | > | will not allow to differentiate between packages using .C and .Fortan and the | > | rest. | > | > Right. And therefore cast too wide a net. | > | > | I am surprised that I did not see a related bug report in the Debian BTS yet, | > | did I overlook something? I only looked for r-base. | > | > They may not know yet. I should write to debian-devel. | > | > Any debian-med or debian-science readers here? | | Yes I am here :)
:) | I spotted the breakage caused by R 3.4.0 when seeing regression tests | failing on ci.debian.net. But I did not report them yet as I am still | busy with the breakage caused by R 3.3.3 (mostly on Bioconductor packages). | In the case of R 3.3.3 it was a bit tedious to identify which packages were | to rebuild because some test failures were only indirect consequences, and | a pacakge responsible for the failures had its own tests passing because | their coverage was shallow... Hence for 3.4.0 I would say that in doubt, | let's rebuild everything. Could you fill me in about what broke with BioC and what caused it? I am not (yet?) on board with recommending a point-blank rebuild of all. | If r-base starts to provide r-api-4 instead of r-api-3 then it will not be | co-installable with the r-cran/bioc/other-* packages until they have been | rebuilt. | | - The benefit is that it will prevent people doing partial upgrades | from Stable, that would break their packages. I am not sure I understand why people would want to do partial upgrades. Debian stable is support. Debian testing is supported. Hybrid mixes of the two are risque. | - The drawback is the extra work of rebuilding the packages that do not | use .C and .Fortran. | | Within the Debian infrastructure, the architecture-dependant packages can be | easily rebuilt by binNMUs. The architecture-independant packages are easier to | rebuild than before, because it is now possible to do source-only uploads. | Also, it may be worth asking on debian-devel if binNMUs of arch-independant | packages will become possible (since we now have autobuilders that can handle | them). It sure would help. | For the Debian packages provided on CRAN, I am not familiar on build is | trigger, so I can not comment on the ease of rebuilding. I think that is a different topic for which we may want a different discussion. Dirk | Have a nice day, | | -- | Charles Plessy | Debian Med packaging team, | http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med | Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org _______________________________________________ R-SIG-Debian mailing list R-SIG-Debian@r-project.org https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-debian