Re: Bug#1054657: transition: r-bioc-biocgenerics
Hi Sebastian,
Am Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 10:53:00AM +0100 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher:
> Control: tags -1 moreinfo
I admit I'm not really happy about the bug ping-pong.
> > I just finished inspecting by eye the homepage of each of the 69 new
> > Bioconductor packages. None of them declare a reverse-dependency to
> > an existing Bioc package that we ship in Debian.
>
> We do not care about new reverse dependencies.
Seems there is some misunderstanding. Charles has inspected pacckages
*outside* Debian whether they might be pulled by new versions of
packages *inside* Debian. These would be candidates for new packages.
> We care about new
> dependencies of packages currently in the archive. So what's the status
> of new the dependencies?
Charles and I tried to explain in different ways: We do not have simple
means to answer this question. But I had a different question; What
exactly is the problem of a transition taking about 1 month due to some
delay by waiting for packages in new?
I somehow have the feeling that this transition is currently delayed by
some bug-mail / tagging ping-pong which is demotivating for both sides.
You make a request to some volunteers to do some extra work that was not
requested before and we volunteers explained that it is really hard
work. I think it is fair to ask for the reasons you want us to do some
work which is definitely hard to do and for us painful and unproductive.
I have also no answer yet to some compromise to simply remove those
packages from testing that need new dependencies. By doing so at least
to my naive understanding the transition should not create any blocker.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: