[R-sig-Fedora] R 4.0.0

[Tom Callaway]

Okay, I'm convinced.

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/R-rpm-macros/pull/1

Thanks,
Tom

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:48 AM Iñaki Ucar <iucar using fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 16:29, Tom Callaway <tcallawa using redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm. That seems like a rather heavy dependency, given that I think we've
> > only been forced to do rebuilds for everything as a result of 4.0.0 and
> > 3.4.0.
>
> That's just coincidence, because if you browse old NEWS, you can see
> "packages [doing this or that] need to be re(-)installed" here and
> there if most minor versions: maybe there wasn't any of such packages
> in Fedora, maybe a mass rebuild or an update fixed the issue before
> anyone noticed... It's just that we don't have any mechanism to detect
> that unless a user complains.
>
> > Does anyone know if upstream has any sort of commitment to ABI here that
> we
> > could depend on (e.g. only breaking on major versions, never minor) ?
>
> AFAIK, there's this commitment only for patch versions. In fact, the
> path for the personal library is:
>
> ~/R/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu-library/<major>.<minor>/
>
> so, when you install a new minor version, you don't have any package
> in your personal library. Most of the time, for many packages, it just
> works if you copy the old packages into the new folder, but many times
> things break and reinstallation is needed. And this may happen for
> compiled packages, but also for non-compiled ones (e.g.: "Packages
> defining S4 classes with the above S3/S4 classes as slots should be
> reinstalled", in R 3.3.0).
>
> So maybe we should streamline mass rebuild of R packages, and do it
> for all minor updates. The virtual provide you proposed will force us
> to do that, and will prevent breakages and complaints.
>
> --
> Iñaki Úcar
>
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]