Hi Dirk On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 at 12:42, Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> wrote: > Doesn't 'normal' do that?
No, only serious and above are considered RC [1] and also for migration. This week, Paul Gevers and I spent some time discussing ways to move this transition forward. Referring back to some of your previous emails below. On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 at 12:01, Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> wrote: > We need to address the packages needing a rebuild. Mine (r-cran-lme4, > r-cran-rcppeigen). have been taken care of. We see the upload of lme4 1.1-35.1-2 on 2023-11-14 [2], and the changelog mentions a rebuild, but the upload of r-cran-rcppeigen 0.3.3.9.4-1 on 2023-11-03 [3] happened before the upload of matrix 1.6-2-1. Does r-cran-rcppeigen still require a rebuild? On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 at 12:23, Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> wrote: > I would appreciate it if someone could tickle rebuilds. To me a quick > informal touch of debian/changelog would do; if someone thinks this needs a > formal transition go for it. We don't believe only touching debian/changelog, or a binNMU, is sufficient. We were surprised that your r-cran-lme4 upload did not at least include: Depends: r-cran-matrix (>= 1.6-2-1) Without that relationship, r-cran-lme4 could migrate to testing and be installed on users' systems without the corresponding version of r-cran-matrix. It is no surprise that the excuses page for lme4 [4] is all red, because that is exactly what is being tested. More on this to come in my next email. Regards Graham [1] https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities [2] https://tracker.debian.org/news/1478501/accepted-lme4-11-351-2-source-into-unstable/ [3] https://tracker.debian.org/news/1475888/accepted-r-cran-rcppeigen-03394-1-source-into-unstable/ [4] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=lme4
