[R-pkg-team] Bug#1035428: Test suite issues due to new upstream version of r-core in unstable (Was: r-cran-shiny: broken symlink: ...)

[Nilesh Patra]

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 09:31:20AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> 
> On 16 May 2023 at 19:49, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> | On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 07:25:15PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> | > I personally prefer "1" over 2 as it is less noise (and effort).
> | 
> | On second thoughts, I think sending it via testing-proposed-updates
> | would be a better thing to do, as this case perfectly fits the problem.
> | 
> | It's be same effort in both cases (one upload + filing a bug with release team).
> 
> Reading 'https://wiki.debian.org/TestingProposedUpdates' does indeed suggest
> that this may be one of those situations.  I can easily prepare a 4.3.0-2
> with that destination but would prefer if someone from the release could
> 'nod', maybe in reply to this email.

Uh, no. Maybe you misunderstood my suggestion. The t-p-u way was for
r-cran-shiny not the r-base package.
This is because r-cran-shiny would want to build against r-base in
testing (and not unstable).

Uploading a 4.3.0-2 of r-base would mean uploading a new r-base to
testing without a proper transition and without re-compilation of
API-incompatible graphics related packages -- that'd be quite the havoc
in testing (and eventually next stable). It also violates some of the
rules of t-p-u -- more details here[1] in case
you are interested.

r-base can continue to stay where it already is at the moment :)

[1]: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#t-p-u

-- 
Best,
Nilesh
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/r-pkg-team/attachments/20230516/80e4dc74/attachment.sig>