On 07/08/16 15:18, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > Thanks for starting the g++-6 transition. > > I suspect/believe that I "own" a (small) stack which needs a transition > policy: > > -- the "R" language (source package r-base) encodes its configuration time > choices for all subsequent compilations; here we have CXX and CXX1X (plus > CXX1Y in next release) > > -- this could be overwritten but it easiest just to rebuild R > > -- R itself is largely C and Fortran and will not be affected > > -- C++ packages will. I am also upstream of the somewhat-widely used C++ > interface in package Rcpp (source package rcpp). We need to rebuild it, > and then all packages dependending on it. See [1] below. There may also
Why do all the rdeps need to be rebuilt? I'm not even sure I understand why rcpp needs to be rebuilt... > be one or two C++ packages not using Rcpp such as r-cran-mcmcpack. I can > weed those out by hand by running a script over rdepends for R as > well. Actually just filtering rdepends for C++ works, see [2] > > -- Ditto for the QuantLib library (depending on Boost) and r-cran-rquantlib > though that is a small leaf > > Is this "small potatos" and something I should organize informally with the > package maintainers, or something you want to coordinate? > > I CC'ed Doko and Martin has I have been discussing an open bug report (which > is somewhat false positive) concerning r-cran-rquantlib; this is really just > the need for the same C++ compiler between R, Rcpp, QuantLib and RQuantLib > (which this transition would achieve too). > > Let me know if I should take this to debian-devel or some other list. Can you summarise all this? I didn't quite understand what is required... What is needed here, binNMUs for a bunch of packages so they are built with the same compiler? Why? Does the ABI change and thus is a library transition needed? Thanks, Emilio
