Hi Charles (and Hi Graham),
On 26 December 2025 at 21:11, Graham Inggs wrote: | Hi Charles | | On Thu, 25 Dec 2025 at 00:06, Charles Plessy <[email protected]> wrote: | > But I would like to ask: why is the bug marked regression? The tests | > are failing in all suites including Stable since the release, so I do not | > see the relation with r-cran-reformula's update yesterday? As I am not the maintainer of r-cran-glmmtmb, I did not get your reply in this thread. Thanks to Graham for adding me in CC. Without having looked into details I suspect this has little to do with the update of r-cran-reformulas, but likely a bit more with the fact that r-cran-glmmtmb is three releases behind. Now, (r-cran-)reformulas is a fairly recent carveout. When that happens it sometimes takes a release or two to shake out issues like the one quoted in this thread (on `[[2]]` subset to a list). This may have driven parts of the three updates in (r-cran-)glmmtmb that we are now behind. | r-cran-glmmtmb's autopkgtests were passing in March 2025. | | The four failing tests; "basic smooth", "smooth with no fixed-effect", | "smooth + diag() specials" and "multiple smooths" only started to fail | after the update of r-cran-reformulas. I checked again, and the | failures first appeared on 2025-11-01, after the upload of version | 0.4.2-1, not version 0.4.3-1 as I wrote previously. Sounds entirely plausible. While I have you both here: r-cran-bit64 still needs help or we get a big autoremoval wave on Jan 11. Charles you Dec 12 upload helped but did not unblock this: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/r-cran-bit64 Do we need to remove the i386 / armhf / s390x binaries from the repo to unblock this? Best, Dirk | | Regards | Graham -- dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | [email protected]
