Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
GNU GSL 2.7 was release a few months ago, and we now realised (in the
discussion of #993324 which also included upstream) that the upstream libtool
instruction were in error by _not_ le
On 8 November 2021 at 22:14, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
| Control: tags -1 moreinfo
| Control: forwarded -1
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-gsl.html
|
| On 2021-10-31 14:29:40 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > Package: release.debian.org
| > Severity: normal
Hi Patrick,
Can you please chime in (as you did in the earlier exchanges when Sebastian
explained to us how to set valus triplet for libtool via configure.ac) ?
On 21 November 2021 at 23:00, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
| On 2021-11-09 12:54:44 -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| >
On 22 November 2021 at 09:08, Patrick Alken wrote:
| Hi all, sorry for all this trouble. I will try to make a new GSL release
| with the correct numbers.
Much appreciate it!
Sebastian, we'll then run a new transition with gsl 2.8 (or whichever version
number it will be) and its new somajor.
D
On 1 December 2021 at 09:45, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
| On 2021-11-30 22:43:11 -0700, Patrick Alken wrote:
| > All, I have uploaded a new GSL release (2.7.1) which I hope fixes the
| > libtool version numbers
Patrick,
Big big thank you! (And I missed this email yesterday)
| Thank you!
|
|
On 1 December 2021 at 21:41, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
| Indeed, it will need a trip through NEW. So going via experimental would
| be appreciated. But, once it passed NEW, you can then immediatly follow
| up with the upload to unstable. I will take care of the binNMUs of the
| reverse dependenci
On 1 December 2021 at 21:47, Patrick Alken wrote:
| Ok please send along the patches.
Sure thing. They are actually 'in the open' as we (== Debian devs) these days
have most / all work in git(-lab via our instance at salsa.debian.org). See
this directory and note that the 'series' file governs
On 2 December 2021 at 20:55, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
| gsl cleared NEW thanks to ta. So this should be good to go.
|
| Please go ahead with the upload to unstable.
Will do. Without any other requirements, correct? I.e. standard upload which
thanks to Patrick's work will be around a new libgsl
On 2 December 2021 at 22:39, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
| On 2021-12-02 15:11:20, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 2 December 2021 at 20:55, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
| > | gsl cleared NEW thanks to ta. So this should be good to go.
| > |
| > | Please go ahead with the upl
On 2 December 2021 at 15:57, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| Yep. It's in the queue by now. I sometimes forget if an experimental ->
| unstable passage does or does not need an orig.tar.gz to go along or not but
| the bots will tell me if so :)
And by now in unstable.
Thanks so much for
Hi Sebastian,
On 6 December 2021 at 21:58, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
| gsl needs another upload. It currently lists libgsl-prof as package that
| should be built, but it isn't. I've been told that in the past this has
| been worked around by manually changing the .dsc before uploading.
It has b
Hi Mattia and Sebastian,
On 6 December 2021 at 22:44, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
| Yes! See https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec for the
| documentation.
|
| Unfortunately there have been a few troubles getting a formal and good
| specifical text that was "good enough" for the Debian Policy.
A
On 8 December 2021 at 12:16, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
| gsl now migrated and libgsl25 got removed from testing.
Fantastic! Thanks to you and to Patrick (CC'ed again) and we're back to where
we once were (GSL updates upstream, I can update without fuss or formal
transitions) but now we are doing
On 21 November 2022 at 16:39, Andreas Tille wrote:
| Am Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 03:05:26PM +0100 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher:
| > On 2022-11-21 15:02:16 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
| > > Some of the BioConductor packages need new dependencies.
| > > I have pushed these to new queue and set the ITP bu
On 31 October 2020 at 18:46, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
| On 2020-05-28 11:58:09 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > Thanks everybody for the help with the transition: 4.0.0-3 is now in
testing.
|
| So let's close this one.
Indeed. Thanks for catching that!
Dirk
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
X-Debbugs-Cc: debia...@lists.debian.org
R 4.0.0 will be released on April 24. The upstream team always follows a
well-publicised scheduled which started yesterday with the first 'alpha'
Hi Graham,
On 3 April 2020 at 20:07, Graham Inggs wrote:
| Hi Dirk
|
| On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 15:57, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > R does change internals every now and then with the annual releases; this is
| > a major one which will require rebuilds of all packages.
|
| I'
Hi Graham,
On 3 April 2020 at 21:32, Graham Inggs wrote:
| Hi Dirk
|
| On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 20:27, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > I am still (as always) lost by the process. Does that mean an upload to
| > unstable is now ok? Or not? I am unsure what "hand shake" from the f
On 4 April 2020 at 10:15, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
| On 4/3/20 8:27 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > Can the tracker sort by
| > - maintainer
| > - binary type
| > to help ?
|
| With the attached script you can create a dd-list from the tracker.
|
| transition-dd-list.p
All,
R 4.0.0 was released as scheduled on Friday, source packages have been in
experimental since Friday too.
There is one build failure on ppc64el but we now know what causes it so a bug
fix from upstream should be forthcoming shortly. The bug can also be
circumvented by (on that platform onl
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
GNU GSL 2.6 was release last fall; the package is stable and does not move
too much upstream. It has been in 'auto transition' for a while following my
initial upload to experimental.
On 29 April 2020 at 13:23, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| R 4.0.0 was released as scheduled on Friday, source packages have been in
| experimental since Friday too.
|
| There is one build failure on ppc64el but we now know what causes it so a bug
| fix from upstream should be forthcoming shortly
On 4 May 2020 at 09:27, Graham Inggs wrote:
| Control: tags -1 + confirmed
|
| Hi Dirk
|
| On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 21:33, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > GNU GSL 2.6 was release last fall; the package is stable and does not move
| > too much upstream. It has been in 'auto transition&#
On 13 May 2020 at 10:15, Graham Inggs wrote:
| Control: tags -1 + confirmed
|
| Hi Dirk
|
| On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 14:51, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > Please schedule a transition for r-base.
| >
| > I will then upload 4.0.0-3 to unstable as soon as I get your green light.
|
| Please
On 4 April 2020 at 13:40, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| On 4 April 2020 at 10:15, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
| | On 4/3/20 8:27 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| | > Can the tracker sort by
| | > - maintainer
| | > - binary type
| | > to help ?
| |
| | With the attached script you
On 25 May 2020 at 09:32, Graham Inggs wrote:
| Hi All
|
| Thanks everyone for doing all the hundreds of uploads that were needed
| for this combined transition.
| All rebuilds for r-api-bioc3.11 are done [1] and there's one
| outstanding FTBFS on a release architecture for r-api-4.0 [2].
The r-
Thanks everybody for the help with the transition: 4.0.0-3 is now in testing.
Which is lovely as upstream is already at work with 4.0.1 which will drop on
June 6 [1]. I'll likely make an rc upload.
Special thanks to Graham for calmly pulling a few strings here and there.
Cheers, Dirk
[1] Det
On 29 May 2020 at 07:51, Dylan Aïssi wrote:
| Hi,
|
| Le jeu. 28 mai 2020 à 18:58, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
| >
| > Thanks everybody for the help with the transition: 4.0.0-3 is now in
testing.
| >
|
| \o/
|
| Both transition trackers (r-api-4.0 and r-api-bioc-3.11) were
On 23 March 2016 at 21:08, Matthias Klose wrote:
| On 23.03.2016 20:05, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > I just looked at /etc/R/Makeconf where CC, CXX, ... get encoded and they are
| > not versioned (ie NOT gcc-4.9) so I am pretty sure we are not using 4.9
| > anywhere bu
On 25 March 2016 at 14:20, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| Le mercredi 23 mars 2016 à 15:32 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
| > On 23 March 2016 at 21:08, Matthias Klose wrote:
| > | On 23.03.2016 20:05, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > | > I just looked at /etc/R/Makeconf where CC,
On 6 April 2016 at 18:49, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
| On 2016-03-25 09:05, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 25 March 2016 at 14:20, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| > | Le mercredi 23 mars 2016 à 15:32 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
| > | > On 23 March 2016 at 21:08, Matth
Thanks for starting the g++-6 transition.
I suspect/believe that I "own" a (small) stack which needs a transition policy:
-- the "R" language (source package r-base) encodes its configuration time
choices for all subsequent compilations; here we have CXX and CXX1X (plus
CXX1Y in next re
On 9 August 2016 at 17:44, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| On 07/08/16 15:18, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > Thanks for starting the g++-6 transition.
| >
| > I suspect/believe that I "own" a (small) stack which needs a transition
policy:
| >
| > -- the "R
On 9 August 2016 at 17:44, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| On 07/08/16 15:18, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > Thanks for starting the g++-6 transition.
| >
| > I suspect/believe that I "own" a (small) stack which needs a transition
policy:
| >
| > -- the "R
: #919324)
+ * libxls/xlstool.h: Idem
+ * ole.c: Idem
+ * xls.c: Idem
+ * xlstool.c: Idem
+
+ * This addresses
+CVE-2018-20450
+CVE-2018-20452
+with corresponding upstream patch in libxls and readxl
+
+ -- Dirk Eddelbuettel Sun, 27 Jan 2019 09:29:50 -0600
+
r-cran-readxl (0.1.1-1
On 30 January 2019 at 13:11, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
| On 2019-01-29 11:53, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > This is a follow-up to the discussion in #919324 and subsequent emails
| > with
| > Moritz and Salvatore. The two CVEs are genuine and fixed, the issue
| > however
| > is
On 30 January 2019 at 13:59, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
| On 2019-01-30 13:39, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > On 30 January 2019 at 13:11, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
| > | On 2019-01-29 11:53, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > ...
| > | > Happy to upload once you give a green light. (Sys
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
Severity: normal
R 3.4.0, which was released in April, made one subtle breaking change
affecting how (optional) compiled code in contributed package is loaded,
affecting the older two of the three (plus one
Dear release team,
On 16 July 2017 at 10:40, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| Package: release.debian.org
| User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
| Usertags: binnmu
| Severity: normal
|
| R 3.4.0, which was released in April, made one subtle breaking change
| affecting how (optional
Dear release team,
I have a follow-up. Kurt Hornik (CC'ed as a courtesy) of the R Core team,
and also an avid Debian user, pointed out another suitable test (of checking
whether the (optional) C-level registration had actually been done in
package). With that, the set of packages to NMU halfes
Hi Andreas,
On 10 August 2017 at 15:36, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
| On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 08:15:17 -0500 Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > Let's get these 46 packages rebuilt so that r-base 3.4.1 can migrate to
| > testing.
|
| Disclaimer: I don't know anything about R or the R packag
Dear release team,
Gentle poke. We still need this set of NMUs to get R 3.4.1 into testing.
"Ask me anything" -- What (if anything) is missing? How can I help?
Dirk
--
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
severity 868558 serious
quit
On 19 August 2017 at 13:14, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| Dear release team,
|
| Gentle poke. We still need this set of NMUs to get R 3.4.1 into testing.
|
| "Ask me anything" -- What (if anything) is missing? How can I help?
Setting severity to '
Hi Niels et al,
On 26 August 2017 at 07:22, Niels Thykier wrote:
| Dirk Eddelbuettel:
| > [...]
| > On 19 August 2017 at 13:14, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > |
| > | Dear release team,
| > |
|
| Hi,
|
| Sorry for the slow up take on our part.
No worries. Releases and Debconfs
So I tried that -- and I cannot currently tickle the bug:
-- r-cran-spatial (from the initial bug report) was long rebuilt by me
-- r-cran-logspline (which you mentioned) is actually no longer on my
refined (shorter) list, no issues there
-- r-cran-data.table (on my list) is a false pos
Emilio,
Thanks for your follow-up. I will try to get to each point.
On 1 September 2017 at 11:42, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| What Niels meant is whether having an old, non-rebuilt R module with the new
| r-base works,
Yes, in general, and here in this case.
| and whether having a new, r
On 1 September 2017 at 13:52, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| On 01/09/17 13:25, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > Emilio,
| >
| > Thanks for your follow-up. I will try to get to each point.
| >
| > On 1 September 2017 at 11:42, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| > | What N
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 arg
On 2 September 2017 at 19:23, Steve Cotton wrote:
| If I may ask, "why do you want to spend the developer time to rebuild only 46
| packages, when there's already an infrastructure that does it for you, at the
| cost of rebuilding all 516"?
Because in my 20+ years with Debian, we generally opted
On 8 September 2017 at 17:23, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| On 01/09/17 14:28, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 1 September 2017 at 13:52, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| > | On 01/09/17 13:25, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > | >
| > | > Emilio,
| > | >
| > | &
On 8 September 2017 at 20:01, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| Hi Dirk and others,
|
| On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 12:29:25PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| > | The problem is that you can end up with r-bioc-makecdfenv_1.50.0-1 (i.e.
before
| > | the rebuild) and r-base_3.4.1-2, because n
On 9 September 2017 at 01:31, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
| On 2017-09-08 22:49, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > I still maintain that this is a useless "academic" consideration. If users
| > want to corrupt their systems by only upgrading one package I will not stop
| > them. They
On 9 September 2017 at 06:44, Niels Thykier wrote:
| Thanks to Sébastien and Andreas for explaining the issue.
Well, was it "explained" ? They both raised and stressed a hypothetical
issue: That "there might be siutations where a partial upgrade breaks"
We don't actually know whether this holds
On 9 September 2017 at 14:12, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 06:48:12AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 9 September 2017 at 06:44, Niels Thykier wrote:
| > | Thanks to Sébastien and Andreas for explaining the issue.
| >
| > Well, was it "exp
On 9 September 2017 at 15:38, Andreas Tille wrote:
| I hereby closing this bug since all affected packages were
| manually uploaded.
I really, really appreciate that.
In your view, can we / shall we also close the underlying
https://bugs.debian.org/861333
which started this? As I underst
On 9 September 2017 at 16:18, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| But since I do not want to waste my time, I first need to be sure that you
would
| accept such a patch.
Re-read
http://eddelbuettel.github.io/rcppapt/binnmuAfterR340.html
and construct (using R and my RcppAPT packages) the set of packa
On 10 September 2017 at 11:20, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| On 09/09/17 13:48, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 9 September 2017 at 06:44, Niels Thykier wrote:
| > | Thanks to Sébastien and Andreas for explaining the issue.
| >
| > Well, was it "explained" ? They
On 10 September 2017 at 16:15, Niels Thykier wrote:
| To be perfectly, honest, I would prefer if you did a proper ABI-like
| transition over the Breaks. At this scale, Breaks seems too fragile and
| too likely for people to get wrong.
I *am* -- all packages (currently) get have r-api-3:
edd@b
On 11 September 2017 at 15:36, Andreas Tille wrote:
| IMHO the best way to deal with this would have been by doing a mass bug
| filing against those packages which were in need of an upgrade. This
| would have attracted the attention of the according maintainers directly
| and would have led to a
On 11 September 2017 at 18:00, Andreas Tille wrote:
| On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 08:55:58AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 11 September 2017 at 15:36, Andreas Tille wrote:
| > | IMHO the best way to deal with this would have been by doing a mass bug
| > | filing against th
On 24 September 2017 at 15:36, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| Control: reopen -1
| Control: retitle -1 transition: r-api-3.4
| Control: user release.debian@packages.debian.org
| Control: usertags -1 = transition
|
| On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 04:15:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
|
| > To be perf
On 28 September 2017 at 13:20, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:53:10PM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote:
| > On 28/09/2017 12:28, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| > > Note that there are many arch:all R packages that will need sourceful
upload
| > > (they are easy to identify on the tr
On 28 September 2017 at 18:53, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 07:04:51AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 28 September 2017 at 13:20, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| > | On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:53:10PM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote:
| > | > On 2
On 28 September 2017 at 22:22, Andreas Tille wrote:
| I wonder if we could teach dh-r to make sure that is added to arch:all
| packages. I'm converting all packages I'm touching to dh-r anyway.
|
| At least a lintian warning might help.
|
| Kind regards
|
| Andreas (after having uploaded
On 29 September 2017 at 07:36, Graham Inggs wrote:
| I've been working on this transition in Ubuntu and here are some of my notes:
|
| rgtk2 and rggobi now FTBFS on s390x, they also fail in a Buster chroot
| on zelenka.debian.org so I don't believe it is a regression in R, but
| the binaries will
On 29 September 2017 at 15:11, Graham Inggs wrote:
| On 29 September 2017 at 12:59, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > On 29 September 2017 at 07:36, Graham Inggs wrote:
| > | rgtk2 and rggobi now FTBFS on s390x, they also fail in a Buster chroot
| > | on zelenka.debian.org so I don't b
On 29 September 2017 at 15:24, Andreas Tille wrote:
| On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:37:19PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
| > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 05:59:54AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > >
| > > dplyr just had a new upstream CRAN release 0.7.4 yesterday. Don't know
ab
On 29 September 2017 at 16:23, Andreas Tille wrote:
| On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 09:11:41AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > | rebuild against r-api-3.4 to upload r-cran-dplyr.
| >
| > It so happens that I (as upstream) got Rcpp 0.12.13 onto CRAN yesterday too,
| > so I owe
transition at all.
Dirk
| it would be helpful if you would not upload r-* packages as long as the
| testing migration has not happened.
|
| Thank you
|
| Andreas.
|
| On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 11:58:20AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > See below for upcoming R 3.4.2 "pre-rele
On 12 October 2017 at 14:26, Andreas Tille wrote:
| On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 07:06:33AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 12 October 2017 at 11:36, Andreas Tille wrote:
| > | yesterday you uploaded
| > |
| > | r-cran-rcpparmadillo 0.8.100.1.0-1
| > |
| >
On 12 October 2017 at 14:38, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
| Hello,
|
| >s/you/Seb/ to make it correct. Not my transition at all.
|
| who-uploads r-base
| Uploads for r-base:
| 3.4.2-1 to unstable: Dirk Eddelbuettel
| 3.4.1.20170921-1 to unstable: Dirk Eddelbuettel
| 3.4.1-2 to unsta
On 12 October 2017 at 15:58, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| Thanks Charles for explaining this.
|
| Actually the migration has already happened, thanks to the Release Team that
| took appropriate action to mitigate the impact of the most recent uploads.
|
| This will soon be reflected in the tracke
On 12 October 2017 at 16:18, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:13:54AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 12 October 2017 at 15:58, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| > | Thanks Charles for explaining this.
| > |
| > | Actually the migration has already happ
On 12 October 2017 at 17:45, Graham Inggs wrote:
| Hi Dirk
|
| On 12/10/2017 16:37, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > And yes, the hint re 3.5 being shaky leads itself to uploading to
experimental.
|
| Would you please consider versioning such uploads as 3.5~something
| instead of 3.4.someth
On 12 October 2017 at 22:32, Johannes Ranke wrote:
| Am Donnerstag, 12. Oktober 2017, 12:01:14 CEST schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
|
| > So we did this 71 times, but stopped 4+ years ago. Not sure what got the
| > toolchain coughing, but I guess we could try again.
|
| texi2dvi used to tri
at 06:39, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| Hi guys,
|
| Package r-cran-readstata13 is now a required build-dependency of another
| package we had in Debian for a decade. So I prepared r-cran-readstata13 five
| weeks ago, and followed up with a revision a week ago (adding README.source).
|
| Could
On 14 October 2017 at 21:59, Chris Lamb wrote:
| Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| > The passive-aggressive "we won't work on your package, and won't tell you
| > why" is a wee bit annoying.
|
| This is an uncharitable interpretation of the situation. There is no
On 14 October 2017 at 22:00, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
| On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 12:59 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > Bumping this as my mail to ftpmaster went unanswered.
| >
| > Could someone please remind me who to ask about the NEW Queue? It is
| > causing
| > me a FTBFS
al.
| >>
| >> Due to changes in R internals, all R extension packages must be recompiled,
| >> that is 573 packages (of which 260 are arch:all, and will therefore need
| >> sourceful uploads).
| >>
| >> The transition will be managed jointly by Dirk Eddelbuettel
On 30 May 2018 at 23:40, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| Control: tags -1 confirmed
|
| On 28/05/18 15:00, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| > On 28/05/18 14:32, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >>
| >> On 28 May 2018 at 14:08, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| >> | Control
On 31 May 2018 at 09:25, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| On 31/05/18 00:13, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 30 May 2018 at 23:40, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| > | curl migrated to testing today. Please go ahead with R 3.5.
| >
| > Yay!! Thank you -- and r-base_3.5.0-3 is
Emilio, Seb,
Can you confirm that now that we have
a) "green light" on the transition, and
b) the r-base package is in unstable
we should see binary: any packages being rebuilt -- which I do not yet
see. When will this start?
On 31 May 2018 at 05:37, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
|
On 31 May 2018 at 15:45, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| On 31/05/18 15:09, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > Emilio, Seb,
| >
| > Can you confirm that now that we have
| > a) "green light" on the transition, and
| > b) the r-base package is in unstable
|
On 31 May 2018 at 16:15, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| Hi,
|
| On 31/05/18 15:45, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| > On 31/05/18 15:09, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >>
| >> Emilio, Seb,
| >>
| >> Can you confirm that now that we have
| >> a) "green light&q
On 31 May 2018 at 16:17, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| > (Out of nerdy curiousity because we sometimes drive rebuilds of [generally
| > much smaller] subsets, where is the code that "walks" the dependency graph?
| > Is that in libapt by chance [as I happen to have a package getting from R to
|
On 1 June 2018 at 11:54, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| Scheduled for cluster foreign rmpi nlme rmatrix robustbase lmtest survival
lme4
| tseries.
Why is that needed? Aren't ALL binary packages auto-rebuilt?
Dirk
--
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
On 1 June 2018 at 12:41, Graham Inggs wrote:
| A warning: src:dbi has a hard-coded dependency on r-api-3.4 in
| debian/control, and src:wkward has the same in debian/rules.
That was from when dh-r was borked and could not cope with srcname != pkgname.
I can look into fixing it this morning but
On 1 June 2018 at 13:37, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| On 01/06/18 13:32, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 1 June 2018 at 11:54, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| > | Scheduled for cluster foreign rmpi nlme rmatrix robustbase lmtest
survival lme4
| > | tseries.
| >
| >
On 1 June 2018 at 06:32, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| On 1 June 2018 at 12:41, Graham Inggs wrote:
| | A warning: src:dbi has a hard-coded dependency on r-api-3.4 in
| | debian/control, and src:wkward has the same in debian/rules.
|
| That was from when dh-r was borked and could not cope with
On 1 June 2018 at 18:35, Graham Inggs wrote:
| On 01/06/2018 17:19, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > This is now taken care of: dbi_1.0.0-2 was just uploaded
|
| Thanks Dirk!
|
| Another weirdness I have come across in Ubuntu today is rebuilds of
| r-cran-expm and r-cran-mlmrev fail with
Hi Andreas,
On 7 November 2015 at 20:17, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
| Hi Dirk,
|
| On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 15:06:14 +0100 Bas Couwenberg
| wrote:
| > An uncoordinated transition to GSL 2.0 has started in unstable.
|
| please file RC bugs against the packages that have a versioned B-D on
| libgsl0-dev
On 8 November 2015 at 12:44, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
| > | Also make the bugs block this transition bug:
| >
| > I'll try to look up how to do that :)
|
| You can do that with the bts tool from devscripts:
|
| $ bts block 804246 by bug1 bug2 bug3 ... bugN
|
| Where bug1 to bugN are the bu
On 8 November 2015 at 17:15, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| On 8 November 2015 at 12:44, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
| | > | Also make the bugs block this transition bug:
| | >
| | > I'll try to look up how to do that :)
| |
| | You can do that with the bts tool from devscripts:
On 9 November 2015 at 01:12, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| Control: block -1 by 804495 804496 804497 804498 804499 804500 804501 804502
|
| On 09/11/15 00:40, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 8 November 2015 at 17:15, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > |
| > | On 8 November 2
On 9 November 2015 at 10:02, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
| On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 19:38:36 -0600 Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 9 November 2015 at 01:12, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| > | > edd@max:~$ bts block 802246 by 804495 804496 804497 804498 804499
804500 804501 804502
| &
On 20 November 2015 at 11:45, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
| On 09-11-15 18:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| > On 06/11/15 15:06, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
| >> Package: release.debian.org
| >> Severity: normal
| >> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
| >> Usertags: transition
| >> Forward
On 23 November 2015 at 20:45, Julien Cristau wrote:
| On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 01:46:26 +0100, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
|
| > altree (1.3.1-2) cannot be built after updating the build dependency to
| > libgsl-dev, because some other dependency still pulls in libgsl0ldbl
| > causing a conflict
two packages impossible whereas the idea of
renaming is presumably to allow that.
Anything else wrong in debian/control you can see? It is included below.
Dirk
|
| Cheers,
| Julien
Source: gsl
Section: math
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Dirk Eddelbuettel
Standards-Version: 3.9.6
Build-Depends:
On 6 December 2015 at 17:01, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
| On 03-12-15 19:11, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
| > On 03/12/15 19:07, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
| >> Because libgsl0-dev is not a transitional package to pull in libgsl-dev
| >> and libgsl2, all gsl rdeps need to update their build d
On 10 March 2010 at 01:22, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
| Christoph Egger writes:
| > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 05:05:47PM -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >> On 9 March 2010 at 21:33, David Claughton wrote:
| >> | That would be the latest 2.26.3 version.
1 - 100 of 257 matches
Mail list logo
