Am Freitag, 21. Mai 2021, 19:03:59 CEST schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel: > On 21 May 2021 at 10:56, Johannes Ranke wrote: > | Hi all, > | > | The NEWS for R 4.1.0 contain the note: > | > | - The graphics engine version, R_GE_version, has been bumped to 14 and so > | packages that provide graphics devices should be reinstalled > | > | And indeed, I just ran into this and got a > | > | Graphics API version mismatch > | > | error when using the tikzDevice package with my fresh CRAN backport of R > | 4.1.0 that Dirk uploaded to experimental. The error went away after > | reinstalling tikzDevice. > > Eeek. Didn't think of that. > > | For CRAN backports users, I just added a note on the Debian page > | > | https://cran.r-project.org/bin/linux/debian/#debian-bullseye-testing > | > | (it will take a while for the mirrors to sync). > | > | Before the r-api system was introduced, I used to set up fresh > | repositories > | when R introduced breaking changes, in order to avoid that an apt-get > | upgrade breaks installed R package functionality. This one slipped by my > | attention. > | > | For the Debian R packages, I think we should find out which of the R > | packages in the Debian archive are affected by this (r-cran-rgl, > | r-cran-svglite, r-cran- vdiffr which embeds svglite, ggplot2, ...) and > | add versioned Breaks. > | > | Or should the r-api Version be bumped from r-api-4.0 to r-api-4.1? > > I would prefer not, and don't think it is called for. But then I often > argued for a more 'laissez-faire' approach that others (on the other list, > i.e. debian-r). > > Once the release is made, I will put R 4.1.0-* into unstable and rebuild at > least all the packages from experimental. Me thinks we can handle this via > the normal bug track mechanism.
A more systematic way would be to have R 4.1.0-2 provide r-graphics-api_14 and only upload packages providing graphics devices that have a respective dependency from now on. But I don't know if it's worth the trouble. > But the backport may have extra issue. But > maybe your list of 'has graphics' packages is good enough? At this point I don't really see what we can do other than spreading the word so the backports users can quickly address the problem by reinstalling the affected packages. Cheers, Johannes > > Dirk -- Johannes Ranke Wissenschaftlicher Berater 07624 8099027 https://jrwb.de _______________________________________________ R-SIG-Debian mailing list R-SIG-Debian@r-project.org https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-debian