Hi Ricardo, Thank you for your inputs.
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 15:47, Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> wrote: > > The packages r-desolve, r-quadprog, r-subplex and r-pracma are defined > > in `maths.scm`. They come from the CRAN archive. For consistency, they > > should be defined in the file `cran.scm`. Do you agree to move them? > > I think moving them to cran.scm is fine. In my opinion both of these > places are similarly poor choices: maths.scm because we drag in the R > build system and dependencies, and cran.scm because it’s huge and will > only get bigger. > > On the plus side, R code is rarely as “involved” as Python code, so I > don’t expect cran.scm to become as tangled up with dependencies from all > over the place as python-xyz.scm, so letting cran.scm grow is probably > just fine. Do you agree that we should document this rationale somewhere? AFAIK, nothing is written down about the lang-xyz.scm or the R land (cran vs bioconductor vs bioinformatics vs math vs statistiscs). I will read our materials and come back with a proposal: manual or cookbook or plain text in repo or etc. What do you think? > Since nobody else seems to hold any strong opinions on this issue, I’d > say you’re welcome to move these package definitions to cran.scm. > Please also update the Copyright comments at the top of the file where > needed (use “git blame” and “git log” to simplify this task) and remove > whatever spurious module imports there may be in maths.scm after > removing the R package definitions. I submitted patches [1] that respect these advices. I hope so. :-) [1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=38184 > PS: I also think that CRAN things in bioinformatics.scm should be moved > to cran.scm, and even some or all of the R stuff in statistics.scm. > (Same applies to Bioconductor packages, which should end up in > bioconductor.scm where possible.) I will do. I will dig into the big move of Haskell or Lisp to see how it is better to split the commits. Thanks. simon