Hi Dirk
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 20:58, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Am I understanding this correctly in that the Breaks: block is temporary and
> once the (current) migration is complete, I should remove that block?
No, I think that block should remain until after the release of bullseye.
Regards
On 8 August 2019 at 20:38, Paul Gevers wrote:
| Hi Graham, Dirk,
|
| On 08-08-2019 19:17, Graham Inggs wrote:
| > I've prepared the attached list of Breaks to be added to the r-base-core
| > binary package.
| >
| > I believe these will ease migration. Paul, do you concur?
|
| Adding the
Hi Graham, Dirk,
On 08-08-2019 19:17, Graham Inggs wrote:
> I've prepared the attached list of Breaks to be added to the r-base-core
> binary package.
>
> I believe these will ease migration. Paul, do you concur?
Adding the breaks helps the migration, yes.
Paul
signature.asc
Description:
Hi Dirk
I've prepared the attached list of Breaks to be added to the r-base-core
binary package.
I believe these will ease migration. Paul, do you concur?
Regards
Graham
--- a/debian/control
+++ b/debian/control
@@ -53,6 +54,31 @@
Conflicts: r-gnome, r-cran-rcompgen, r-base-latex
On 23 July 2019 at 12:56, Graham Inggs wrote:
| Hi Dirk
|
| On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 12:09, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > Can you expand that last sentence? I do not understand what you are trying
to
| > say here. What is "main"? What are "buildds"? Why would r-base not migrate?
|
| Please see
Hi Dirk
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 12:09, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Can you expand that last sentence? I do not understand what you are trying to
> say here. What is "main"? What are "buildds"? Why would r-base not migrate?
Please see Bits from the Release Team announcement of 2019-07-07 [1],
On 23 July 2019 at 11:18, Graham Inggs wrote:
| Hi All
|
| I think we're nearing the end of the R 3.6 transition, so I had a
| brief look at the remaining autopkgtest regressions.
|
| r-bioc-biocinstaller/1.32.1-1needs update
| r-bioc-graph/1.60.0-11.62-0-1 in unstable
|
Hi All
I think we're nearing the end of the R 3.6 transition, so I had a
brief look at the remaining autopkgtest regressions.
r-bioc-biocinstaller/1.32.1-1needs update
r-bioc-graph/1.60.0-11.62-0-1 in unstable
r-bioc-phyloseq/1.26.1+dfsg-11.28.0+dfsg-1 in unstable
On 18 April 2019 at 13:27, Paul Gevers wrote:
| That check is for a version of r-cran-permute not yet in Debian, for
A bug in r-cran-permute.
In Google-speak, 'CRAN lives at HEAD'. The top of its release repo (ie the
CRAN mirrors) is what we would call a release and guaranteed to work across
Hi Dirk,
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 05:38:34 -0500 Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> I have argues before that these need to be reassigned as these packages
> generally build at CRAN -- and test in a wider (OS-wise speaking) setting
> than we have. See eg
>
On 18 April 2019 at 09:28, Paul Gevers wrote:
| Source: r-base
| Severity: important
| User: debian...@lists.debian.org
| Usertags: breaks
| Control: affects -1 r-cran-permute
| Control: affects -1 r-cran-phangorn
| Control: affects -1 r-cran-popepi
| Control: affects -1 r-cran-recipes
|
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 09:28:55AM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Source: r-base
> Severity: important
> User: debian...@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: breaks
> Control: affects -1 r-cran-permute
> Control: affects -1 r-cran-phangorn
> Control: affects -1 r-cran-popepi
> Control: affects -1
Source: r-base
Severity: important
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: breaks
Control: affects -1 r-cran-permute
Control: affects -1 r-cran-phangorn
Control: affects -1 r-cran-popepi
Control: affects -1 r-cran-recipes
Control: affects -1 r-cran-sp
Control: affects -1 r-cran-spam
Control:
13 matches
Mail list logo
