Re: Bug#1040001: transition: r-base
Hi Paul,
Am Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 07:48:16AM +0200 schrieb Paul Gevers:
> Anytime is good to ask for a transition, particularly when the transition is
> already ongoing.
:-)
> I don't think it should surprise anyone that we prefer it to be done right.
> Our preference is for option 1.
Thanks for confirming.
> However, if you can't get the pieces for
> that option in place in a reasonable time (say, a week or two, take some
> time to try),
I think my piece is ready. We just need to decide about a proper name
of the virtual package. I'll inject this into my proof of concept
change of dh-r. Than Dirk needs to upload another r-base package
containing the r-graphics-api-VERSION. This should not be a hard thing
to do - Dirk just stayed silent about this change since we are
discussing it.
> then we prefer to get *this* transition out of the way by
> means of option 2.
I personally think that we are in a good situation in the beginning of
the release cycle to do things right, which means option 1. But it
depends from the r-base maintainer to cooperate here.
> I don't think it's in anybodies interest to waste time on
> option 3.
ACK. I told Bas so who had spent quite some time to file bugs against
lots of r-cran-* packages which are all a consequence of the
not-yet-transition.
> > Sorry that this transition bug is that complex. I would have loved if
> > it would went more coordinated but unfortunately that's not in my hands
> > and I simply try to reassemble the pieces.
>
> Thanks for communicating with us, much appreciated.
Its always a pleasure to communicate with you. ;-)
> I'll try to set a placeholder transition tracker up soon; for now, by lack
> of something better, will reflect option 2. We can update that once we have
> the pieces for option 1.
Thanks a lot
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: