On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 09:31:20AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 16 May 2023 at 19:49, Nilesh Patra wrote: > | On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 07:25:15PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote: > | > I personally prefer "1" over 2 as it is less noise (and effort). > | > | On second thoughts, I think sending it via testing-proposed-updates > | would be a better thing to do, as this case perfectly fits the problem. > | > | It's be same effort in both cases (one upload + filing a bug with release > team). > > Reading 'https://wiki.debian.org/TestingProposedUpdates' does indeed suggest > that this may be one of those situations. I can easily prepare a 4.3.0-2 > with that destination but would prefer if someone from the release could > 'nod', maybe in reply to this email.
Uh, no. Maybe you misunderstood my suggestion. The t-p-u way was for r-cran-shiny not the r-base package. This is because r-cran-shiny would want to build against r-base in testing (and not unstable). Uploading a 4.3.0-2 of r-base would mean uploading a new r-base to testing without a proper transition and without re-compilation of API-incompatible graphics related packages -- that'd be quite the havoc in testing (and eventually next stable). It also violates some of the rules of t-p-u -- more details here[1] in case you are interested. r-base can continue to stay where it already is at the moment :) [1]: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#t-p-u -- Best, Nilesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
