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, 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. > | > | Then I don't understand why these binNMUs are needed. > | > | >From #861333 OP: > | > | "With current R, R packages built for Debian before the upload of R > | 3.3.3.20170413-1 > | on 14 April that use .C or .Fortran do no work properly, because the > functions > | calling .C or .Fortran do not find the compiled objects." > | > | That tells me that if you upgrade R but don't upgrade some modules, those > will > | (partially) break. Hence we need either an ABI bump, or versioned breaks > against > | the affected modules in r-base. > > The Bug: > > - package foo contains .C() or .Fortran and registers it > - it is built with R 3.3.* (or any R before R 3.4.0) > - you upgrade to R 3.4.0 tries to load that function in foo > > Not a bug: > > - any other use case including staying at R 3.3.3 and using > a package from R 3.4.0 (not that you could with Debian because all > r-cran-* packages already impose a >= on the R that built it).
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. Emilio
