On Thu, 13 May 2010, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > On 13 May 2010 at 10:01, Don Armstrong wrote: > | If I was paying more attention when R packages started coming into > | the archive, I would have lobbied harder for them to follow the > | lib*-perl > > If memory serves, I started with RODBC and tseries. Thanks to the > corresponding debian/changelog entries, that can be pinned to March > 2003. Seven years ago. AFAICR we had no consistent Perl Policy (TM) > at the time. > > On 30 Dec 2003 I posted (to debian-devel and r-devel) a proposed 'Debian R > Policy' but never followed in a formal manner.
Yeah, it's mainly my fault that I didn't notice or respond properly. [I was even using R then, though I wasn't working on the BTS.] > *Informally* we now have this consensus: new r-cran-$FOO packages of > CRAN sources $FOO comes with source and binary named r-cran-$FOO. Awesome; that's really what I wanted to make sure was happening. > So the question now is whether we need to clean up the several dozen > packages that do not correspond. It's not worth it, IMO. The pain of renaming source packages is worse than the minor issue of bugs ocassionally getting into the wrong place. So long as we try to avoid the problem for new packages, it's good enough as far as I'm concerned. Don Armstrong -- Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come. -- Tussman's Law http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
