On Thursday, 14 May 2020 23.58.02 WEST Iñaki Ucar wrote: > But we still have to rebuild the packages anyway, and this setup > doesn't force us to actually rebuild them, nor the user to update > them. So a user could end up with R major.minor and a bunch of > packages installed in some major.minor-1 path that are just junk. Or > the other way around: a bunch of packages updated under major.minor+1 > with a previous version of R.
Honestly my point here was for consistency with the user settings. If you have per version directories for users why not to do the same for the system? > I mean, +1 to less boilerplate for packages, but changing the release > + the ABI specification is not a big deal and solves those issues. For > me, having a path with full version specification only makes sense if > there is more than one version installed at the same time, like > Python. That would also be a nice side effect. :-) -- José Abílio _______________________________________________ R-SIG-Fedora mailing list R-SIG-Fedora@r-project.org https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-fedora
