On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 02:28:21PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > | It looks like rpy 0.4.1-4 fixes this bug by adding a full set of R-2.1.0
> I recalled that we had fixed it; I guess I confused 2.0.1 with 2.1.0 here. > | headers inside the tarball. Is this really the appropriate fix? If so, I > | can push 0.4.1-4 into sarge; but it looks like these headers are duplicates > | of the ones already present in r-base-core, and that this is actually a bug > | with the upstream build-scripts? > You need to talk to Greg (== upstream) about that. He calls this "batteries > ^H generators included". For other less stringently organised upstream > systems, shipping the headers is appropriate. For us, it is overkill, but > then this ain't a Debian-native package so ... Eh, these headers were all added to the package in the Debian diff between 0.4.1-2 and 0.4.1-4; it doesn't look to me like upstream's to blame for their presence. > What do I have to do to get 0.4.1-4 into sarge? Looking from the different > 'build', 'excuses' and 'more' links off my qa summary page > (http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php?packages=rpy), it looks like this > has been built everywhere. Can you push it into sarge? Only if you can really explain why the package grew all of these headers in a Debian revision, and why rpy can't be fixed to use the r-base headers installed on the system (as a result of the build-dep) instead. :) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
