Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition X-Debbugs-Cc: r-b...@packages.debian.org, debia...@lists.debian.org Control: affects -1 + src:r-base
Hi, I'm not sure that we are in the right status to ask for a transition bug since the affected package was just uploaded some time ago by its maintainer who did not considered a proper transition. This was discussed on debia...@lists.debian.org in several postings - I try to point you to the most relevant ones https://lists.debian.org/debian-r/2023/06/msg00011.html as a response to >30 bugs against single packages all affecting the r-base migration due to (to be expected) autopkgtest errors in testing. You can basically get this list of now all RC buggy packages from the tracker page or r-base[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-r/2023/06/msg00017.html suggests r-graphics-api-* after r-base maintainer confirmed "they cheated _a little_ and changes the graphics API" (probably meaning ABI not API) https://lists.debian.org/debian-r/2023/06/msg00016.html Reference to the docs https://lists.debian.org/debian-r/2023/06/msg00025.html In the end of this mail three options are listed which I simply repeat here for your comfort: 1. implement the r-graphics-api-* This might be a bit complex since for the moment I do not know any means how to detect the packages that need this dependency (and how we can implement this into dh-update-R) So this might become technically complex in the first case 2. Just do a full r-api transition This would work but affects more packages than strictly necessary. My gut feeling says we will be able to finish this earlier than 1. despite technically not perfect 3. Blindly ignore the fact that we need a transition and follow the hackish workaround by using random versioned Depends as suggested by Nilesh for r-cran-epi. https://lists.debian.org/debian-r/2023/06/msg00027.html Confirmation for option 1. While I would love to hear the opinion of the release team what kind of transition (1. or 2.) should be prefered (if this is possible now at all since the affected package r-base 4.3.1 is in the archive since some time and also the most urgent packages are rebuild manually) or whether we need to fight manually through this mess (option 3.) I confirm that I agree with Johannes Ranke to prefer option 1. and do it "right" to be safe for the next time. To support this idea I just commited some proof of concept change to dh-r which would support injecting a virtual package in case r-base would define it. This requires confirmation of the r-base maintainer. 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. Kind regards Andreas. [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/r-base [2] https://salsa.debian.org/r-pkg-team/dh-r/-/commit/f79e2573a59c1ff01c526a7dcf15b7f85263cc29 Ben file: title = "r-base"; is_affected = <Fill out>; is_good = <Fill out>; is_bad = <Fill out>;
