[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Quoting Jari Oksanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 13:52 +0100, Peter Dalgaard wrote: > > > I M S White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > Can anyone explain why with latest version of R (2.0.1) on FC3, > > > > installed > > > > from R-2.0.1-0.fdr.2.fc3.i386.rpm, update.packages() produces the > > > > message > > > > > > > > /usr/lib/R/bin/Rcmd exec: INSTALL: not found. > > > > > > > > Indeed /usr/lib/R/bin seems to lack various shell scripts (INSTALL, > > > > REMOVE, etc). > > > > > You need to install the R-devel package too: > > > 1 > > > R-devel-2.0.1-0.fdr.2.fc3.i386.rpm > > > > > > The big idea is that this will suck in all the required compilers, > > > libraries, and include files via RPM dependencies, but users with > > > limited disk space may be content with the binaries of R+recommended > > > packages. > > > > > This kind of problems were to be anticipated, weren't they? The great > > divide between use-only and devel packages is a rpm packaging standard, > > but not very useful in this case: it splits a 568K devel chip from a > > 15.4M chunk of base R. Moreover, you don't have a repository of binary > > packages for Linux which means that not many people can use the 568K > > saving in download times (saving in disk space is more considerable of > > course). So are there plans for binary Linux packages for other distros > > than Debian so that people could use the non-devel piece of R only? > > > > cheers, jari oksanen > > The splitting is an experiment (and I said so when I announced it). > It does have unforseen consequences, like implicating me in maintaining a > repository of binary RPMs for CRAN packages, which I'm not particularly keen > on. > > So I shall probably revert to a single RPM, and force the installation > requirements to be the same as the build requirements. This was, in fact, > Peter's suggestion which shows that not everybody is as short-sighted as me. > > Martyn
Hmm... Actually, you had sort of convinced me that the split might be a good idea. Point being of course that it's not the 568K that gets shaved off in R-devel, it's the 12M for gcc + the 5M for g77 + 28M for perl + more, which are only needed for installing packages and are therefore not dependencies of the main R RPM. Maintaining binary package RPMs was never in the cards as I saw it. However, it then only makes sense if a sizable proportion of R users are never going to install packages. Otherwise you get cost of having to explain the point repeatedly, at basically zero benefit. -- O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3 c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45) 35327907 ______________________________________________ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html