From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: myglc2 Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: r: Update to 3.3.1. Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 12:47:14 -0400 Message-ID: <86h9b5lppp.fsf@gmail.com> References: <874m77gpll.fsf@gnu.org> <8660rmgbgh.fsf@gmail.com> <87oa5e91nf.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46869) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bTtvL-0006Vc-0k for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 12:49:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bTtvG-0002v1-Td for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 12:49:10 -0400 Received: from blaine.gmane.org ([80.91.229.8]:53752) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bTtvG-0002sm-ML for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 12:49:06 -0400 Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bTtv9-0002sN-5J for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:48:59 +0200 List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: guix-devel@gnu.org ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > myglc2 skribis: > >> I can assure you that if our users do guix pull and invisibly get a new >> R release, > > They need to to ‘guix pull’ *and* ‘guix package -u’. > >> their analyses will from time to time break. So we may want a simple >> way for them to back down to a previous release. So.. I am thinking it >> would make sense to keep previous versions of R in the recipe. What do >> others think? > > I don’t use R myself; keeping a couple of R versions would be fine, > though R packages would always be built only against the latest R. I had forgotten that you are also building many packages. Given that, an update to the R guix recipe may break some packages. So all the packages should probably be tested as part of an R recipe update. Do/did we do that? As regards keeping a couple of R versions, if we don't keep the associated packages it will have limited usefulness, so I withdraw the suggestion.