On Sun, Oct 10, 1999 at 05:07:22PM -0700, John Lapeyre wrote: > This is OK. Except that Raul Miller took pdl already. r-pdl is > somewhat obsolete. I currently have it patched into the pdl source. > The pdl people will take it upstream, but I haven't had time to correct > a couple of things.(eg, there is an identifier collision). I don't know if > he will continue to include r-pdl as a patch.
I was not planning on supporting r-pdl, as I have not ever used R, and I wouldn't know where to start. However, I did notice that there are a number of files under Lib/R which are not in MANIFEST. I'll probably leave them there until I run into a problem with them. <ASIDE> By the way, I don't suppose anyone knows why I'd be getting /lib defined in rpath on some perl .so files? [Looking at perl this should only be happening if I was running IRIX.] </ASIDE> Is r-pdl important to anyone? I'm concerned about the size of the debian .diff.gz for pdl, and would hate to waste a lot of time doing something that no one cares about (or, worse, breaking R support and not finding out about it). Is it important that R support be included with PDL? Thanks, -- Raul
