On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 09:11:41AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> | > > dplyr just had a new upstream CRAN release 0.7.4 yesterday. Don't know
> about
> | > > the others as I am less close to BioConductor.
> | >
> | > I'll upload new version soon
> |
> | I have no idea why r-cran-rcpp was
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 09:11:41AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 29 September 2017 at 15:24, Andreas Tille wrote:
> | On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:37:19PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> | > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 05:59:54AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | > >
> | > > dplyr just had a n
On 29 September 2017 at 16:23, Andreas Tille wrote:
| On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 09:11:41AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > | rebuild against r-api-3.4 to upload r-cran-dplyr.
| >
| > It so happens that I (as upstream) got Rcpp 0.12.13 onto CRAN yesterday too,
| > so I owe Debian a new r-cr
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 09:11:41AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> | rebuild against r-api-3.4 to upload r-cran-dplyr.
>
> It so happens that I (as upstream) got Rcpp 0.12.13 onto CRAN yesterday too,
> so I owe Debian a new r-cran-rcpp_0.12.13.
>
> However, I had local server issues and some
On 29 September 2017 at 15:24, Andreas Tille wrote:
| On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:37:19PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
| > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 05:59:54AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > >
| > > dplyr just had a new upstream CRAN release 0.7.4 yesterday. Don't know
about
| > > the others as
On 29 September 2017 at 15:11, Graham Inggs wrote:
| On 29 September 2017 at 12:59, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > On 29 September 2017 at 07:36, Graham Inggs wrote:
| > | rgtk2 and rggobi now FTBFS on s390x, they also fail in a Buster chroot
| > | on zelenka.debian.org so I don't believe it is a r
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:37:19PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 05:59:54AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >
> > dplyr just had a new upstream CRAN release 0.7.4 yesterday. Don't know about
> > the others as I am less close to BioConductor.
>
> I'll upload new version s
On 29 September 2017 at 12:59, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On 29 September 2017 at 07:36, Graham Inggs wrote:
> | rgtk2 and rggobi now FTBFS on s390x, they also fail in a Buster chroot
> | on zelenka.debian.org so I don't believe it is a regression in R, but
> | the binaries will need to be removed
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 05:59:54AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> dplyr just had a new upstream CRAN release 0.7.4 yesterday. Don't know about
> the others as I am less close to BioConductor.
I'll upload new version soon
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
On 29 September 2017 at 07:36, Graham Inggs wrote:
| I've been working on this transition in Ubuntu and here are some of my notes:
|
| rgtk2 and rggobi now FTBFS on s390x, they also fail in a Buster chroot
| on zelenka.debian.org so I don't believe it is a regression in R, but
| the binaries will
I've been working on this transition in Ubuntu and here are some of my notes:
rgtk2 and rggobi now FTBFS on s390x, they also fail in a Buster chroot
on zelenka.debian.org so I don't believe it is a regression in R, but
the binaries will need to be removed.
r-bioc-iranges, r-bioc-variantannotation
On 28 September 2017 at 22:22, Andreas Tille wrote:
| I wonder if we could teach dh-r to make sure that is added to arch:all
| packages. I'm converting all packages I'm touching to dh-r anyway.
|
| At least a lintian warning might help.
|
| Kind regards
|
| Andreas (after having uploaded
On 28 September 2017 at 18:53, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 07:04:51AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 28 September 2017 at 13:20, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| > | On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:53:10PM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote:
| > | > On 28/09/2017 12:28, Sébastien
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:53:26PM +0200, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 07:04:51AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> I now understand that we ideally need two API/ABI-like values instead of one:
>
> - one that is bumped when only arch:any packages need to be rebuilt
>
> -
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 07:04:51AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 28 September 2017 at 13:20, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> | On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:53:10PM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote:
> | > On 28/09/2017 12:28, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> | > > Note that there are many arch:all R package
On 28 September 2017 at 13:20, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:53:10PM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote:
| > On 28/09/2017 12:28, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| > > Note that there are many arch:all R packages that will need sourceful
upload
| > > (they are easy to identify on the tr
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:53:10PM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote:
> On 28/09/2017 12:28, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> > Note that there are many arch:all R packages that will need sourceful upload
> > (they are easy to identify on the transition tracker whose URL is above).
>
> Besides r-cran-nlp which
On 28/09/2017 12:28, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
Note that there are many arch:all R packages that will need sourceful upload
(they are easy to identify on the transition tracker whose URL is above).
Besides r-cran-nlp which doesn't show up in the tracker, I've found
several other arch:all packa
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:33:39AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Control: forwarded -1
> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/r-base-3.4.html
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>
> On 24/09/17 15:36, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> > The latest upload of r-base, versioned 3.4.1.20170921-1,
On 24 September 2017 at 15:36, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> title = "r-api-3.4";
> is_affected = .depends ~ /r-api-3(\.4)?/;
> is_good = .depends ~ /r-api-3\.4/;
> is_bad = .depends ~ /r-api-3\b/;
I had some trouble with this in Ubuntu until Stefano Rivera suggested:
is_bad = .depends ~ /r-api-3(,
Processing control commands:
> forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/r-base-3.4.html
Bug #868558 [release.debian.org] transition: r-api-3.4
Set Bug forwarded-to-address to
'https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/r-base-3.4.html'.
> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #868558 [release.de
Control: forwarded -1
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/r-base-3.4.html
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 24/09/17 15:36, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> Control: reopen -1
> Control: retitle -1 transition: r-api-3.4
> Control: user release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Control: usertags -1
On 24 September 2017 at 15:36, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| Control: reopen -1
| Control: retitle -1 transition: r-api-3.4
| Control: user release.debian@packages.debian.org
| Control: usertags -1 = transition
|
| On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 04:15:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
|
| > To be perf
Processing control commands:
> reopen -1
Bug #868558 {Done: Andreas Tille } [release.debian.org] nmu:
multiple r-* packages
Bug reopened
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #868558 to the same values
previously set
> retitle -1 transition: r-api-3.4
Bug #868558 [release.debian.org] n
Control: reopen -1
Control: retitle -1 transition: r-api-3.4
Control: user release.debian@packages.debian.org
Control: usertags -1 = transition
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 04:15:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> To be perfectly, honest, I would prefer if you did a proper ABI-like
> transition ov
On 11 September 2017 at 18:00, Andreas Tille wrote:
| On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 08:55:58AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 11 September 2017 at 15:36, Andreas Tille wrote:
| > | IMHO the best way to deal with this would have been by doing a mass bug
| > | filing against those packages wh
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 08:55:58AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 11 September 2017 at 15:36, Andreas Tille wrote:
> | IMHO the best way to deal with this would have been by doing a mass bug
> | filing against those packages which were in need of an upgrade. This
> | would have attracted
On 11 September 2017 at 15:36, Andreas Tille wrote:
| IMHO the best way to deal with this would have been by doing a mass bug
| filing against those packages which were in need of an upgrade. This
| would have attracted the attention of the according maintainers directly
| and would have led to a
Hi,
IMHO the best way to deal with this would have been by doing a mass bug
filing against those packages which were in need of an upgrade. This
would have attracted the attention of the according maintainers directly
and would have led to action more quickly (at least I confirm this in my
case).
Dirk Eddelbuettel:
>
> On 10 September 2017 at 16:15, Niels Thykier wrote:
> [...]> |
> Next April they will have r-api-4.
Ok. If the r-api-4 bump in April works like I think it does, then that
will also resolve this problem as a side-effect. So in worst case, we
can do a regular transition of
On 10 September 2017 at 16:15, Niels Thykier wrote:
| To be perfectly, honest, I would prefer if you did a proper ABI-like
| transition over the Breaks. At this scale, Breaks seems too fragile and
| too likely for people to get wrong.
I *am* -- all packages (currently) get have r-api-3:
edd@b
Dirk Eddelbuettel:
>
> On 10 September 2017 at 11:20, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> | On 09/09/17 13:48, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | >
> | > On 9 September 2017 at 06:44, Niels Thykier wrote:
> | > | Thanks to Sébastien and Andreas for explaining the issue.
> | >
> | > Well, was it "explained
On 10 September 2017 at 11:20, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| On 09/09/17 13:48, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 9 September 2017 at 06:44, Niels Thykier wrote:
| > | Thanks to Sébastien and Andreas for explaining the issue.
| >
| > Well, was it "explained" ? They both raised and stressed
On 09/09/17 13:48, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 9 September 2017 at 06:44, Niels Thykier wrote:
> | Thanks to Sébastien and Andreas for explaining the issue.
>
> Well, was it "explained" ? They both raised and stressed a hypothetical
> issue: That "there might be siutations where a partial up
On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 09:39:37AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 9 September 2017 at 16:18, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> | But since I do not want to waste my time, I first need to be sure that you
> would
> | accept such a patch.
>
> Re-read
>
> http://eddelbuettel.github.io/rcppapt/b
On 9 September 2017 at 16:18, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| But since I do not want to waste my time, I first need to be sure that you
would
| accept such a patch.
Re-read
http://eddelbuettel.github.io/rcppapt/binnmuAfterR340.html
and construct (using R and my RcppAPT packages) the set of packa
On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 08:53:49AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On 9 September 2017 at 14:12, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> | On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 06:48:12AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | >
> | > On 9 September 2017 at 06:44, Niels Thykier wrote:
> | > | Thanks to Sébastien and Andreas
On 9 September 2017 at 14:12, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 06:48:12AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 9 September 2017 at 06:44, Niels Thykier wrote:
| > | Thanks to Sébastien and Andreas for explaining the issue.
| >
| > Well, was it "explained" ? They both ra
On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 06:48:12AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 9 September 2017 at 06:44, Niels Thykier wrote:
> | Thanks to Sébastien and Andreas for explaining the issue.
>
> Well, was it "explained" ? They both raised and stressed a hypothetical
> issue: That "there might be siutat
On 9 September 2017 at 06:44, Niels Thykier wrote:
| Thanks to Sébastien and Andreas for explaining the issue.
Well, was it "explained" ? They both raised and stressed a hypothetical
issue: That "there might be siutations where a partial upgrade breaks"
We don't actually know whether this holds
Control: tags -1 wontfix
Dirk Eddelbuettel:
>
> On 9 September 2017 at 01:31, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> | On 2017-09-08 22:49, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | > I still maintain that this is a useless "academic" consideration. If
> users
> | > want to corrupt their systems by only upgrading one pa
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 wontfix
Bug #868558 [release.debian.org] nmu: multiple r-* packages
Added tag(s) wontfix.
--
868558: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=868558
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
On 9 September 2017 at 01:31, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
| On 2017-09-08 22:49, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > I still maintain that this is a useless "academic" consideration. If users
| > want to corrupt their systems by only upgrading one package I will not stop
| > them. They can simply fix them
On 2017-09-08 22:49, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> I still maintain that this is a useless "academic" consideration. If users
> want to corrupt their systems by only upgrading one package I will not stop
> them. They can simply fix them by also upgrading the package left behind.
If the package depe
On 8 September 2017 at 20:01, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| Hi Dirk and others,
|
| On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 12:29:25PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| > | The problem is that you can end up with r-bioc-makecdfenv_1.50.0-1 (i.e.
before
| > | the rebuild) and r-base_3.4.1-2, because nothing pre
Hi Dirk and others,
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 12:29:25PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | The problem is that you can end up with r-bioc-makecdfenv_1.50.0-1 (i.e.
> before
> | the rebuild) and r-base_3.4.1-2, because nothing prevents that combination.
>
> You may misunderstand. Only packages
On 8 September 2017 at 17:23, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| On 01/09/17 14:28, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 1 September 2017 at 13:52, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| > | On 01/09/17 13:25, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > | >
| > | > Emilio,
| > | >
| > | > Thanks for your follow-up. I w
On 01/09/17 14:28, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 1 September 2017 at 13:52, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> | On 01/09/17 13:25, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | >
> | > Emilio,
> | >
> | > Thanks for your follow-up. I will try to get to each point.
> | >
> | > On 1 September 2017 at 11:42, Emil
On 2 September 2017 at 19:23, Steve Cotton wrote:
| If I may ask, "why do you want to spend the developer time to rebuild only 46
| packages, when there's already an infrastructure that does it for you, at the
| cost of rebuilding all 516"?
Because in my 20+ years with Debian, we generally opted
On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 08:20:00AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On 2 September 2017 at 14:57, Steve Cotton wrote:
> | On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:03:06PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | > So I continue to argue [2] that we should rebuild these 46, not force all
> 516.
> |
> | If I may ask
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:03:06PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> But the whole point of my bug report, and write up, is that
>
>46
>
> out of 516 package need a rebuild.
>
> So I continue to argue [2] that we should rebuild these 46, not force all 516.
If I may ask, "why?".
When you fi
On 2 September 2017 at 14:57, Steve Cotton wrote:
| On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:03:06PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > But the whole point of my bug report, and write up, is that
| >
| >46
| >
| > out of 516 package need a rebuild.
| >
| > So I continue to argue [2] that we should rebui
On 1 September 2017 at 13:52, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| On 01/09/17 13:25, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > Emilio,
| >
| > Thanks for your follow-up. I will try to get to each point.
| >
| > On 1 September 2017 at 11:42, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| > | What Niels meant is whether ha
On 01/09/17 13:25, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> Emilio,
>
> Thanks for your follow-up. I will try to get to each point.
>
> On 1 September 2017 at 11:42, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> | What Niels meant is whether having an old, non-rebuilt R module with the new
> | r-base works,
>
> Yes, i
Emilio,
Thanks for your follow-up. I will try to get to each point.
On 1 September 2017 at 11:42, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| What Niels meant is whether having an old, non-rebuilt R module with the new
| r-base works,
Yes, in general, and here in this case.
| and whether having a new, r
Hi Dirk,
On 26/08/17 14:29, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> So I tried that -- and I cannot currently tickle the bug:
>
> -- r-cran-spatial (from the initial bug report) was long rebuilt by me
>
> -- r-cran-logspline (which you mentioned) is actually no longer on my
> refined (shorter) list
So I tried that -- and I cannot currently tickle the bug:
-- r-cran-spatial (from the initial bug report) was long rebuilt by me
-- r-cran-logspline (which you mentioned) is actually no longer on my
refined (shorter) list, no issues there
-- r-cran-data.table (on my list) is a false pos
Hi Niels et al,
On 26 August 2017 at 07:22, Niels Thykier wrote:
| Dirk Eddelbuettel:
| > [...]
| > On 19 August 2017 at 13:14, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > |
| > | Dear release team,
| > |
|
| Hi,
|
| Sorry for the slow up take on our part.
No worries. Releases and Debconfs have a habit of
Dirk Eddelbuettel:
> [...]
> On 19 August 2017 at 13:14, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> |
> | Dear release team,
> |
Hi,
Sorry for the slow up take on our part.
> | Gentle poke. We still need this set of NMUs to get R 3.4.1 into testing.
> |
> | "Ask me anything" -- What (if anything) is missing
severity 868558 serious
quit
On 19 August 2017 at 13:14, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| Dear release team,
|
| Gentle poke. We still need this set of NMUs to get R 3.4.1 into testing.
|
| "Ask me anything" -- What (if anything) is missing? How can I help?
Setting severity to 'serious' which i
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 868558 serious
Bug #868558 [release.debian.org] nmu: multiple r-* packages
Severity set to 'serious' from 'normal'
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
868558: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bug
Dear release team,
Gentle poke. We still need this set of NMUs to get R 3.4.1 into testing.
"Ask me anything" -- What (if anything) is missing? How can I help?
Dirk
--
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
Hi Andreas,
On 10 August 2017 at 15:36, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
| On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 08:15:17 -0500 Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > Let's get these 46 packages rebuilt so that r-base 3.4.1 can migrate to
| > testing.
|
| Disclaimer: I don't know anything about R or the R packaging.
No worries.
|
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 08:15:17 -0500 Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Let's get these 46 packages rebuilt so that r-base 3.4.1 can migrate to
> testing.
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about R or the R packaging.
Isn't it possible to use some virtual r-abi-WHATEVER package(s) to make
such transitions e
Dear release team,
I have a follow-up. Kurt Hornik (CC'ed as a courtesy) of the R Core team,
and also an avid Debian user, pointed out another suitable test (of checking
whether the (optional) C-level registration had actually been done in
package). With that, the set of packages to NMU halfes
Dear release team,
On 16 July 2017 at 10:40, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| Package: release.debian.org
| User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
| Usertags: binnmu
| Severity: normal
|
| R 3.4.0, which was released in April, made one subtle breaking change
| affecting how (optional) compile
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
Severity: normal
R 3.4.0, which was released in April, made one subtle breaking change
affecting how (optional) compiled code in contributed package is loaded,
affecting the older two of the three (plus one
67 matches
Mail list logo
