Re: Matrix update triggering need for four rebuilds
Hi Dirk,
Am Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 07:23:06AM -0600 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
> Most of these are not in Debian but I think we need binary rebuilds of
>
> irlba because of headers
> OpenMx because of headers, a new upstream 2.21.10 is out too
> TMB because of headers
Uploaded yesterday since I realised the need.
> MatrixModels because of S4 caching
>
> I would appreciate it if someone could tickle rebuilds. To me a quick
> informal touch of debian/changelog would do; if someone thinks this needs a
> formal transition go for it.
In principle upgrading four packages at request is cheap. However, I
have the feeling that we are technically more safe if we would introduce
some r-tmb-api which would technically raise a signal for tmb
dependencies. I've "hacked" some workaround into r-cran-tmb since I
was motivated by the github issue discussing the relation to Matrix[1]
to fix a very specifix Matrix version. I've put the release team in
CC since they were involved into the according discussion.
I consider it necessary to make those dependencies technically
transparent and some according API seems to be the usual way to do this.
> The R Core team and the CRAN maintainers are aware of the implicit problem
> with signalling the need for binary rebuilds. They are discussing this, but
> do not have an answer. Historically, CRAN has informally rebuilt its binaries
> for windows and macOS, but that of course does not help binary distributors
> such as us, other Linux distros, Conda, r2u, ... at all.
May be its interesting to hear the opinion of the said CRAN maintainers
whether they consider the suggested means as appropriate to deal with
this issue.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://github.com/kaskr/adcomp/issues/387
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: