On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 06:54:37PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
The patch has three parts. I presume we want to kill the third?
--- r-base-3.2.0.orig/debian/control 2015-05-11 00:20:08.947567937 +0100
+++ r-base-3.2.0/debian/control 2015-05-11 00:20:51.498702854 +0100
---
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 07:34:46PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 11 May 2015 at 00:33, Julian Gilbey wrote:
| The only thing I'm not sure about, and you may have a better view, is
| whether r-cran packages should depend only on the api version (so:
| Depends: r-api-3), or whether they
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 04:46:30PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Hi Julian,
On 10 May 2015 at 22:20, Julian Gilbey wrote:
| Hi Dirk,
|
| Well, jessie has been released now.
Once again without any breakage for R or R-related packages ...
Indeed. See the long discussion in the bug
Hi Julian,
On 10 May 2015 at 22:20, Julian Gilbey wrote:
| Hi Dirk,
|
| Well, jessie has been released now.
Once again without any breakage for R or R-related packages ...
| Please can you upload a version of r-base which addresses this issue,
| providing a Provides: r-base-api-3.0 field,
Hi Dirk,
Well, jessie has been released now.
Please can you upload a version of r-base which addresses this issue,
providing a Provides: r-base-api-3.0 field, and modifying the
r-base-dev scripts as described in the bug report.
As has been explained repeatedly in these bug reports, this is
(a)
The patch has three parts. I presume we want to kill the third?
--- r-base-3.2.0.orig/debian/control2015-05-11 00:20:08.947567937 +0100
+++ r-base-3.2.0/debian/control 2015-05-11 00:20:51.498702854 +0100
--- r-base-3.2.0.orig/debian/r-cran.mk 2015-05-11 00:20:08.979567287 +0100
+++
On 11 May 2015 at 00:33, Julian Gilbey wrote:
| The only thing I'm not sure about, and you may have a better view, is
| whether r-cran packages should depend only on the api version (so:
| Depends: r-api-3), or whether they should also depend upon the actual
| base version (Depends: r-base-core
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 09:21:33PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
The disagreement comes from the fact that the maintainer does not
think that he must declare this incompatibility.
For now, if you install a r package from testing, it will pull
the r-base-core from testing (due to dependency
Hi everybody,
In #704805, there is a disagreement between the maintainer of R software
and several other people (me included).
R software is packaged into a lots of different Debian packages (with
different maintainers) along with the main R package (r-base-core).
Due to internal changes,
Hi,
On 05/04/2014 21:21, Vincent Danjean wrote:
Hi everybody,
[...]
I'm interested by having more inputs on this point, hence my mail
to d-d.
Just for information, I forgot to add debian-devel before sending
my mail, so I bounced it just after (ie it will arrive at d-d but
this is not
Hi,
The maintainer think that he does not need to do anything about
that. People should just upgrade all their packages from stable to
testing when r-base-core is upgraded.
Other people (and me) disagree and think that other broken r-related
packages must be either removed or upgraded
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 09:21:33PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
The disagreement comes from the fact that the maintainer does not
think that he must declare this incompatibility.
For now, if you install a r package from testing, it will pull
the r-base-core from testing (due to dependency
Hi Dirk, Charles and everybody!
I was going to share my current and very positive experience with Qt5
providing a virtual package as Charles suggest, but looking further in the bug
log I see that at least Scott and Don have already done so with other
examples.
So just allow me Dirk to tell
13 matches
Mail list logo
