search for: buildability_

...ple I even added a "frozen" package [1] in the sources / unit tests to test for just this. In practice you just cannot hit every possible access point of the (rich, in our case) API so the tests pass too often. Which is why we relentlessly test against reverse-depends to _at least ensure buildability_ from our releases. As for seamless binary upgrade, I don't think in can work in practice. Ask Uwe one day we he rebuilds everything every time on Windows. And for what it is worth, we essentially do the same in Debian. Sometimes you just need to rebuild. That may be the price of admission f...

...ot; package [1] in the sources / unit tests | > to test for just this. In practice you just cannot hit every possible access | > point of the (rich, in our case) API so the tests pass too often. | > | > Which is why we relentlessly test against reverse-depends to _at least ensure | > buildability_ from our releases. I meant to also add: "... against a large corpus of other packages." The intent is to empirically answer this. | > As for seamless binary upgrade, I don't think in can work in practice. Ask | > Uwe one day we he rebuilds everything every time on Windows. A...

...it tests | > | > to test for just this. In practice you just cannot hit every possible access | > | > point of the (rich, in our case) API so the tests pass too often. | > | > | > | > Which is why we relentlessly test against reverse-depends to _at least ensure | > | > buildability_ from our releases. | > | > I meant to also add: "... against a large corpus of other packages." | > The intent is to empirically answer this. | > | > | > As for seamless binary upgrade, I don't think in can work in practice. Ask | > | > Uwe one day we he rebu...

...;frozen" package [1] in the sources / unit tests > to test for just this. In practice you just cannot hit every possible access > point of the (rich, in our case) API so the tests pass too often. > > Which is why we relentlessly test against reverse-depends to _at least ensure > buildability_ from our releases. > > As for seamless binary upgrade, I don't think in can work in practice. Ask > Uwe one day we he rebuilds everything every time on Windows. And for what it > is worth, we essentially do the same in Debian. > > Sometimes you just need to rebuild. That may...

...urces / unit tests > | > to test for just this. In practice you just cannot hit every possible access > | > point of the (rich, in our case) API so the tests pass too often. > | > > | > Which is why we relentlessly test against reverse-depends to _at least ensure > | > buildability_ from our releases. > > I meant to also add: "... against a large corpus of other packages." > The intent is to empirically answer this. > > | > As for seamless binary upgrade, I don't think in can work in practice. Ask > | > Uwe one day we he rebuilds everyth...

...t; to test for just this. In practice you just cannot hit every possible access > | > | > point of the (rich, in our case) API so the tests pass too often. > | > | > > | > | > Which is why we relentlessly test against reverse-depends to _at least ensure > | > | > buildability_ from our releases. > | > > | > I meant to also add: "... against a large corpus of other packages." > | > The intent is to empirically answer this. > | > > | > | > As for seamless binary upgrade, I don't think in can work in practice. Ask > | >...

Hi I'd like to suggest to make R more informative when a user updates a package A where there's at least one package B that has "LinkingTo: A" in its description. To illustrate the problem, assume package A is updated so that its C/C++ header interface (in inst/include) is changed. For package B to pick up these changes, we need to reinstall package A. In extreme cases, if

...ust this. In practice you just cannot hit every possible access >> | > | > point of the (rich, in our case) API so the tests pass too often. >> | > | > >> | > | > Which is why we relentlessly test against reverse-depends to _at least ensure >> | > | > buildability_ from our releases. >> | > >> | > I meant to also add: "... against a large corpus of other packages." >> | > The intent is to empirically answer this. >> | > >> | > | > As for seamless binary upgrade, I don't think in can work in practi...