On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 01:02:02PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote: > >> Note: is you really do not want to rename you r-base-core package, > >> you can keep it but you then will need to add a versionned Breaks: > >> dependency for all previous (before R 3.x) Debian R-packages. > >> As I know that there exists lots of Debian R packages outside > >> of the main archive, it seems to me that this is a worst solution > >> as a rename of r-base-core. > > > > That is probably not necessary. Someone using testing has to be aware > > of the possibility of breakages. By the time jessie is released, in > > two or three years' time, this issue will have been resolved > > How ? > Currently, R debian packages in wheezy have something as > "depends: r-base-core (>= 2.X)" > How partial upgrade to jessie would work if r-base-core is not renamed > (and conflicting with r-base-core) or if a new r-base-core does not > add a versionned breaks for all old (wheezy) R debian package? > Do you see another solution?
You are correct - it would not work. > > everyone building external packages should have figured out the new > > system. Also, the breakages are very obvious: R tells you explicitly > > that the package needs recompiling with R 3.0.0. > > I would be very disappointed if Debian does not use its dependencies > to ensure good (partial) upgrades. Having to run a software (R) and to > test each of its 'library' to know if they still work after a partial > upgrade seems plainly wrong. > > > Having to rename > > r-base-core every time there is an API upgrade seems like a kludge, > > The rename (or the long list of breaks) if only necessary now because > no virtual package have been used yet. > When a virtual package encoding an abi version will be introduced, > no rename will be required anymore. The previous R ABI changes had the same problem and we lived through it. I personally think (and I am not an R maintainer) that a very long list (potentially thousands if external packages are included) of breaks is unhelpful and an unnecessary effort. The breakage that a broken partial upgrade will cause is local and easily identifiable (as R tells you it's broken when you try to use an old module). Not nice, for sure; not ideal, agreed. But it's survivable, the issue will affect very few people (only those doing partial upgrades), and is easy to fix. But as long as there is only one version of R in Debian (and I can't personally think of a reason why one would want more than one version), the idea of renaming the core R package to fix this one partial breakage, and then being stuck with this ugly new package naming convention and the technical issues it will bring with it for the rest of the life of Debian (a potentially very long time) seems unpleasant at least. > So, I ask again: > What are R maintainers idea for ensuring that partial upgrades > from wheezy to jessie will work? > > For myself, I see two technical solution: r-base-core rename > or long list of versionned breaks into r-base-code. Perhaps you > see other solutions. Or the third non-ideal-but-simplest solution: keep the current status quo and allow partial upgrades to break on this occasion. > Then, there is the problem for future transitions. Adding a > virtual abi package would allow to efficiently solve future > transitions. I also recommend this. But this is a different > problem. Indeed, and this is what this bug report is focusing on - fixing things for future transitions. Julian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
