Dear Dirk,
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 09:44:45AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 30 June 2014 at 16:11, Andreas Tille wrote:
> | I'm trying to implement checks for the binary packages to the best of my
>
> Please write a 'new source available' check, or just use what debian/watch
> already gives. And the QA pages. And and and. Dozens of "your" (ie teams)
> packages are MONTHS and MANY RELEASES behind which is a disgrace.
I would be really happy if you would not choose every communication with
me as a chance to bring up the same topic. Moreover your claim is - at
least currently - not true.
> What we talk about here is marginal.
Could you please base this statement on some more information? As far
as I know testing in whatever form is not marginal. Hint: Remember your
most favourite quote you repeatedly pushed at me when you talked about
updates?
> And you are free to add other
> subroutines to your local debian/rules.
>
> | knowledge. In my current roundup of the R packages which are maintained
> | by the teams I'm involved in I was adding autopkgtest control files
> | running the unit tests if there were any provided in the upstream source.
>
> Again there is _one_ canonical way the R community tests: R CMD check
> against the pristine tarball. It invokes all available tests. Do not
> reinvent the wheel.
I think I have given good reasons that the wheel is not reinvented by
testing the resulting binaries in the build process. It would be great
if you could answer my arguments - perhaps I was missing some points.
> If you have spare cycles, keep your packages current. Please.
As said above you might like to check the current status of Debian Med
and Debian Science R packages. Those that are lagging behind are
waiting for preconditions in new queue. Everything else is up to date
and featuring autopkgtests where possible.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
