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 a hypothetical | > issue: That "there might be siutations where a partial upgrade breaks" | > | > We don't actually know whether this holds. This R 3.4.* change was not a | > full-fledged ABI change. | > | > | That is fine. Then (to my knowledge) your only option is an "ABI bump". | > | > I still disagree, for this case. | > | > We will likely need one for anticipated internal R changes by R 3.5.0. | > | > | Until one of these solutions is applied, this bug is "wontfix" and | > | r-base is blocked from migrating to testing. | > | > I think this is a dissservice to our users. | | The only disservice here is that you refuse to prevent users from getting broken | systems due to this ABI break. This is particularly surprising given the simple | fix (adding breaks) and that Sébastien is offering you a patch.
That is just not true. Someone would have to intentionally try to (and I must use quotes here) "break" their system by intentionally upgrading only r-base(-core). If and when (which will still be unlikely) a call does not get resolved the affected user would do what every R users knows: "rebuild the package", in this case upgrade the package too. Case closed. It is hair-brained anyway as users typically upgrade in buld: apt-get dist-upgrade. And to be brutally honest: most users I know compile CRAN packages from CRAN directly into /usr/local/lib/R so this whole dance about the r-cran-* packages is somewhat irrelevant, and clearly irrational. I understand the release loves BREAKS but it does not solve a problem that needs solving here. You create a problem by aggrandising what is more or less a non-issue so that you can then come and tell us BREAKS solves everything. Now: Excuse for r-base Migration status: BLOCKED: Needs an approval (either due to a freeze, the source suite or a manual hint) 64 days old (needed 5 days) Not touching package due to block request by nthykier (please contact debian-release if update is needed) Piuparts tested OK - https://piuparts.debian.org/sid/source/r/r-base.html Not considered Dear debian-release: Please remove this block. | | This is no different from someone breaking a shared library ABI, say libfoo0, | and then asking for rebuilds of the rdeps, and refusing to bump the SONAME, | rename the package or add breaks against the non-rebuilt rdeps. That would be | unacceptable, and so is your case. | | As it was pointed out, look at the recent Python extension ABI break that was | quickly fixed by adding Breaks and scheduling a bunch of binNMUs. That is a different issue. I have no time for apples-oranges discussions. We has no ABI break. Dirk -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
