On 2 September 2017 at 14:57, Steve Cotton wrote: | On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:03:06PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > But the whole point of my bug report, and write up, is that | > | > 46 | > | > out of 516 package need a rebuild. | > | > So I continue to argue [2] that we should rebuild these 46, not force all 516. | | If I may ask, "why?".
Because R 3.4.1 is blocked from entering testing. "Our priorities are our users". I personally do not care [1] but _I_ have been asked by R Core (as their usual contact person for things Debian, which some of them use) why the current R is still on in testing. I am only trying to help... | When you find yourself sending this to the debian-devel mailing | list ... | | > - I filed it on July 16. | > - I followed up on July 29. | > - I followed up on August 6. | > - I answered a question on August 10. | > - I followed up on August 19. | > - I answered a question on August 26, and followed up on August 26. | > | > I am at wits end. | > | > Dirk | | ... please, consider the price it's having on your sanity. An email every couple of weeks is nothing. If you want to question my sanity, look at my github commits, my CRAN uploads and my r-cran-* uploads. You'd have a much better point. | | It seems that the whole set of R packages is 0.5GB of binaries. | By comparison, a minor bugfix in texlive-bin results in a 1GB | download for anyone who's installed it from Unstable. What's the point? I am not talking about texlive. I am talking about a perfectly modular problem that is solvable. But I am done here it seems. No point talking to windmills. Dirk [1] We have active backports at CRAN for the actual 'r-base' packages, and I happen to install all of CRAN I use in /usr/local/lib/R/site-library to have a faster update cadence. So I *personally* do not care. But I want my users to have it in testing if they want it. Seemingly we can't have that. -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
