R SIG Fedora - Jun 2021 - Plans for R 4.1 in Fedora?

On Fri., Jun. 4, 2021, 10:08 a.m. Tom Callaway, <spotrh at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Is there a way to know which R components provide graphics drivers? I would
> really rather not rebuild everything if we do not have to.
>
>
Unless you mean rebuild for testing purposes, because you added the R(ABI)
= major.minor Provides/Requires, you need to rebuild the world anyway.

>
> ~spot
>
> On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 6:28 AM I?aki Ucar <iucar at
fedoraproject.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 22 May 2021 at 22:18, Jos? Ab?lio Matos <jamatos at
fc.up.pt>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >   what should be our plan for R 4.1 update in Fedora?
> >
> > See [1]. The plan is to wait for the next RStudio release and
> > coordinate updates.
> >
> > [1] https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-fedora/2021-May/000736.html
> >
> > >   What are the pitfalls and the changes that we should be aware?
> >
> > The NEWS says: "The graphics engine version, R_GE_version, has
been
> > bumped to 14 and so packages that provide graphics devices should be
> > reinstalled." But anyway, we should do the customary mass rebuild
of
> > packages to avoid other possible incompatibilities and "Package
was
> > built under version 4.0" messages.
> >
> > I?aki
> >
> > >   The second semester (with the corresponding induced pandemic
chaos)
> is
> > > dimming down around here so I have at least time to breath again.
:-)
> > >
> > >   FWIW I am in no hurry to have 4.1 in Fedora 34, my main
interest is
> to
> > have
> > > it in rawhide and later if we find it suitable to backport it to
F34.
> > >
> > >   FWIW since our last talk Octave (for version 7 at least) is
starting
> by
> > > default to have the major version in the path for packages. :-)
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > --
> > > Jos? Ab?lio
> > >         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > R-SIG-Fedora mailing list
> > > R-SIG-Fedora at r-project.org
> > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-fedora
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I?aki ?car
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > R-SIG-Fedora mailing list
> > R-SIG-Fedora at r-project.org
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-fedora
> >
>
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-SIG-Fedora mailing list
> R-SIG-Fedora at r-project.org
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-fedora
>
	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

That is a very good point. Oh well. Anyone want to help generate the build
order? :)

~spot

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021, 3:57 PM Elliott Sales de Andrade <
quantum.analyst at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri., Jun. 4, 2021, 10:08 a.m. Tom Callaway, <spotrh at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> Is there a way to know which R components provide graphics drivers? I
>> would
>> really rather not rebuild everything if we do not have to.
>>
>>
> Unless you mean rebuild for testing purposes, because you added the R(ABI)
> = major.minor Provides/Requires, you need to rebuild the world anyway.
>
>
>>
>> ~spot
>>
>> On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 6:28 AM I?aki Ucar <iucar at
fedoraproject.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 22 May 2021 at 22:18, Jos? Ab?lio Matos <jamatos at
fc.up.pt>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >   what should be our plan for R 4.1 update in Fedora?
>> >
>> > See [1]. The plan is to wait for the next RStudio release and
>> > coordinate updates.
>> >
>> > [1]
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-fedora/2021-May/000736.html
>> >
>> > >   What are the pitfalls and the changes that we should be
aware?
>> >
>> > The NEWS says: "The graphics engine version, R_GE_version,
has been
>> > bumped to 14 and so packages that provide graphics devices should
be
>> > reinstalled." But anyway, we should do the customary mass
rebuild of
>> > packages to avoid other possible incompatibilities and
"Package was
>> > built under version 4.0" messages.
>> >
>> > I?aki
>> >
>> > >   The second semester (with the corresponding induced
pandemic chaos)
>> is
>> > > dimming down around here so I have at least time to breath
again. :-)
>> > >
>> > >   FWIW I am in no hurry to have 4.1 in Fedora 34, my main
interest is
>> to
>> > have
>> > > it in rawhide and later if we find it suitable to backport it
to F34.
>> > >
>> > >   FWIW since our last talk Octave (for version 7 at least) is
>> starting by
>> > > default to have the major version in the path for packages.
:-)
>> > >
>> > > Best regards,
>> > > --
>> > > Jos? Ab?lio
>> > >         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > R-SIG-Fedora mailing list
>> > > R-SIG-Fedora at r-project.org
>> > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-fedora
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > I?aki ?car
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > R-SIG-Fedora mailing list
>> > R-SIG-Fedora at r-project.org
>> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-fedora
>> >
>>
>>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> R-SIG-Fedora mailing list
>> R-SIG-Fedora at r-project.org
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-fedora
>>
>
	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]