Dear Dirk and others, On May 14 2014, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > On 14 May 2014 at 17:08, Rogério Brito wrote: > | Anyway, I can push the *super* embrionary packaging that I have so far. I > | would like some help with the maintainance of this package since I have > | barely any time left with the amount of packages that I maintain. > > I am semi-regularly IM'ing or emailing with the RStudio founder whom I'll > meet tomorrow. I also have pretty good contacts with a number of other > RStudio developers and engineers.
That's great. I would love to know what to do about RStudio to convince it to (while building) to use some off-the-tree packages like hunspell, mathjax and possibly others. > You want to look at the current dev packages, eg (in binary) > http://rstudio.org/download/daily/ > which, inter alia, contain a very cooked-up local build of pandoc to be able > to get the very, very latest pandoc binary without any depends. Thanks. Somehow I missed that directory. > I am not sure how ready this is even for Debian unstable, and they _do_ You probably meant experimental here? > provide ready-made .deb packages that users like myself deploy. I installed and started using rstudio and I have never been so impressed with an IDE like this in ages. There are so many goodies with it that it would be a real pity to not have it in Debian. That being said, I don't think that the FTP masters would let us upload something that duplicates a lot of stuff, but that shouldn't prevent us (or the interested parties) from working on the package and start solving the small problems (like those that I mentioned before), detecting unpackaged dependencies (e.g., knitr and possibly many others) etc. > I can ask tomorrow, but RStudio is still a pretty fast moving target. Thanks. It would be nice to know if they are moving from Qt4 to Qt5 in the short time or not. Also, if they would like to see RStudio packaged independently from them. And there are probably other smaller issues like linking rstudio with openssl, given that rstudio is licensed under the agplv3 and I didn't see any licensing exception while skimming the sources (but it may be there). Thanks, -- Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA http://cynic.cc/blog/ : github.com/rbrito : profiles.google.com/rbrito DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140514214511.ga32...@ime.usp.br
