search for: rdeps

...; I just asked the Xen Project's Release Manager and their current best > guess is that Xen 4.8.0 will be released in "early to mid November". > > Sorry to hassle you, but I would appreciate an opinion so that I can > get started on the integration work etc. Assuming the rdeps are fine with Xen 4.8, then I'd be all for moving to it. Xen is a security sensitive package and I think it'd be good to get the extra security support from upstream. Note the transition freeze will start soon. Do you have an idea of how long it may take to prepare for this? Cheers, Emilio

We're going to try to reorder the scalar ops of a vector instr to accomodate swizzles that would otherwise require us to emit to an additional TEMP first (like MOV R0.xy, R0.zx). --- src/gallium/drivers/nv50/nv50_program.c | 148 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 files changed, 118 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/nv50/nv50_program.c

...rary/tools/R/build.R =================================================================== --- src/library/tools/R/build.R (revision 87545) +++ src/library/tools/R/build.R (working copy) @@ -1165,9 +1165,11 @@ desc <- .read_description(file.path(pkgname, "DESCRIPTION")) Rdeps <- .split_description(desc)$Rdepends2 hasDep350 <- FALSE + hasDep410 <- FALSE for(dep in Rdeps) { if(dep$op != '>=') next if(dep$version >= "3.5.0") hasDep350 <- TRUE + if(dep$version >= "4.1.0...

...=============================================================== > --- src/library/tools/R/build.R (revision 87545) > +++ src/library/tools/R/build.R (working copy) > @@ -1165,9 +1165,11 @@ > desc <- .read_description(file.path(pkgname, "DESCRIPTION")) > Rdeps <- .split_description(desc)$Rdepends2 > hasDep350 <- FALSE > + hasDep410 <- FALSE > for(dep in Rdeps) { > if(dep$op != '>=') next > if(dep$version >= "3.5.0") hasDep350 <- TRUE > + if...

...============================================================= >> --- src/library/tools/R/build.R (revision 87545) >> +++ src/library/tools/R/build.R (working copy) >> @@ -1165,9 +1165,11 @@ >> desc <- .read_description(file.path(pkgname, "DESCRIPTION")) >> Rdeps <- .split_description(desc)$Rdepends2 >> hasDep350 <- FALSE >> + hasDep410 <- FALSE >> for(dep in Rdeps) { >> if(dep$op != '>=') next >> if(dep$version >= "3.5.0") hasDep350 <- TRUE >> + if(dep$version >= &...

...========================================= >>> --- src/library/tools/R/build.R (revision 87545) >>> +++ src/library/tools/R/build.R (working copy) >>> @@ -1165,9 +1165,11 @@ >>> desc <- .read_description(file.path(pkgname, "DESCRIPTION")) >>> Rdeps <- .split_description(desc)$Rdepends2 >>> hasDep350 <- FALSE >>> + hasDep410 <- FALSE >>> for(dep in Rdeps) { >>> if(dep$op != '>=') next >>> if(dep$version >= "3.5.0") hasDep350 <- TRUE >>> +...

Suppose I'm author of a package on which quite a few other packages depend. When I submit to CRAN, I run R CMD check on it, Kurt does that too, and if things work out fine, it is accepted. When one or more of the packages that depend on it break because of my changes, however, hell breaks loose. I would like to extend my testing (currently: R CMD check pkg) to running R CMD check on all

...===================== >>>> --- src/library/tools/R/build.R (revision 87545) >>>> +++ src/library/tools/R/build.R (working copy) >>>> @@ -1165,9 +1165,11 @@ >>>> desc <- .read_description(file.path(pkgname, "DESCRIPTION")) >>>> Rdeps <- .split_description(desc)$Rdepends2 >>>> hasDep350 <- FALSE >>>> + hasDep410 <- FALSE >>>> for(dep in Rdeps) { >>>> if(dep$op != '>=') next >>>> if(dep$version >= "3.5.0") hasDep350 <- TRUE >...

On 27.09.2016 17:07, Ian Jackson wrote: > Stefan Bader writes ("Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Help wanted with Debian Xen packages ?"): >> FWIW, I think I got the library naming cleaned up now >> (~rc5). Slightly different approach as I had to either keep the >> major.minor .so versions (I believe because of the map files) or >> libvirt would fail to compile against the

...; >>>> --- src/library/tools/R/build.R (revision 87545) > >>>> +++ src/library/tools/R/build.R (working copy) > >>>> @@ -1165,9 +1165,11 @@ > >>>> desc <- .read_description(file.path(pkgname, "DESCRIPTION")) > >>>> Rdeps <- .split_description(desc)$Rdepends2 > >>>> hasDep350 <- FALSE > >>>> + hasDep410 <- FALSE > >>>> for(dep in Rdeps) { > >>>> if(dep$op != '>=') next > >>>> if(dep$version >= "3.5.0")...

Hi. I was wanting an initial opinion from the Release Team, about the Xen packages. Currently they are in bad shape in stretch and I intend to fix them ASAP. The question is whether I should move to Xen 4.7, or Xen 4.8. Xen 4.8 is currently at RC2 and seems in pretty good shape. I think it's more probable than not that we'll have Xen 4.8.0 by the Debian freeze date, but this is by no