Okay, I'm convinced. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/R-rpm-macros/pull/1
Thanks, Tom On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:48 AM Iñaki Ucar <iu...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 16:29, Tom Callaway <tcall...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Hmmm. That seems like a rather heavy dependency, given that I think we've > > only been forced to do rebuilds for everything as a result of 4.0.0 and > > 3.4.0. > > That's just coincidence, because if you browse old NEWS, you can see > "packages [doing this or that] need to be re(-)installed" here and > there if most minor versions: maybe there wasn't any of such packages > in Fedora, maybe a mass rebuild or an update fixed the issue before > anyone noticed... It's just that we don't have any mechanism to detect > that unless a user complains. > > > Does anyone know if upstream has any sort of commitment to ABI here that > we > > could depend on (e.g. only breaking on major versions, never minor) ? > > AFAIK, there's this commitment only for patch versions. In fact, the > path for the personal library is: > > ~/R/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu-library/<major>.<minor>/ > > so, when you install a new minor version, you don't have any package > in your personal library. Most of the time, for many packages, it just > works if you copy the old packages into the new folder, but many times > things break and reinstallation is needed. And this may happen for > compiled packages, but also for non-compiled ones (e.g.: "Packages > defining S4 classes with the above S3/S4 classes as slots should be > reinstalled", in R 3.3.0). > > So maybe we should streamline mass rebuild of R packages, and do it > for all minor updates. The virtual provide you proposed will force us > to do that, and will prevent breakages and complaints. > > -- > Iñaki Úcar > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] _______________________________________________ R-SIG-Fedora mailing list R-SIG-Fedora@r-project.org https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-fedora