Am Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 08:18:57PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra:
> You are correct. A transition is all we need. However, in case of
> r-cran-epi simply adding a versioned dep on dplyr should do the trick.
> (epi is not a failure in excuses for dplyr).
Why exactly do you think that actually dplyr should receive a versioned
Depends. It is not specified in DESCRIPTION explicitly and before I
change d/control to something which is not reproduced by dh-update-R I
would love to understand the background of your suggestion. Is it just
because r-cran-dplyr belongs to the affected packages in the graphics
API that was mentioned by Dirk?
> I think this particular bug is sensible because without these versioned
> depends, epi will fail it's tests (for instance while backporting).
Why do you think so?
> We
> can go on closing these BRs on the fly. It would also help you track all
> the dependencies a bit better.
But what means "better". For the moment we strictly trust DESCRIPTION.
If the DESCRIPTION file would be wrong I'd rather file an upstream bug
report to add the versioned dependency there.
> PS: Do you need a hand with this transition?
I'm hoping to fight through r-cran-* as far as no new packages are
involved. I've droped some TODOs inside d/changelog of packages that
need deeper inspection. I'm currently need to care for r-cran-[t-z]*.
Packages higher in alphabeth either have issues or had new releases
since I was there in the last two weeks,
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
