On 29 May 2013 at 15:19, Julian Gilbey wrote: | On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 08:19:14AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > AFAIC our problem is, if I may, that some maintainer groups let their | > r-cran-* packages get disconnected from upstream and never rebuild. That bugs | > me a lot more than what is a non-issue (ABI breakage of R maybe once every | > four years; and R is a pretty tangential package in Debian as a whole. The | > status quo is fine. | | That is, indeed, a problem. The other extreme, as I discovered, is | packages that are rebuilt so frequently that they don't migrate into | testing....
I agree on that. I wasn't watching for that. I tend to upgrade "my" packages every other day or so, but then upstream generally has not more than an upgrade per months. This ought to be the exception, not the rule. So again, let's not overcomplicate things. | Mind you, coordinated upgrades should not be *that* | difficult! | | Either way, having the r-api-3.0 etc. Provides/Depends system seems | like a good thing to do for the future ;-) Yes, that would be a compromise as we also "inject it" automatically into builds via the standardized debian/rules all packages have. It does of course neither solve nor even attempt to address the social issue of over-eager maintainer teams adoption r-cran-* packages only to let them be quasi-orphaned. Dirk -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
