On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Vincent Goulet <vincent.gou...@act.ulaval.ca> wrote: > Le dim. 05 avr. à 21:53, Paul Leo a écrit : > >> Thankyou Dirk, >> That was a great summary I think I understand the philosophy now. I will >> go move forward with compiling the source code with caution. > > (Phew, shouldn't have been away today! Sorry folks, but I'll sort of reply > to many messages at once.) > > First, Paul, if you want to compile R on Ubuntu from the Debian sources, > you'll want to use or, at least, have a look at my build scripts located at: > > https://vgoulet.act.ulaval.ca/svn/R/cran-ubuntu/ > > (This is the public svn repository Dirk was referring to.) The important one > is build-r-base.sh; the script makes all the modifications to the Debian > sources needed to compile on Ubuntu releases from Dapper to Intrepid and > then launches the build process.
> Regarding the distribution of binary packages of beta versions of R for > Ubuntu, I fully agree with Michael. > I also think Doug's proposal to distribute patched sources is a nice > compromise. That said, I'm not too sure which files I should make available. > Dirk may confirm that the needed files would be, for example: > r-base_2.9.0~20090327-1intrepid0.diff.gz > r-base_2.9.0~20090327-1intrepid0.dsc > r-base_2.9.0~20090327-1intrepid0_i386.changes > r-base_2.9.0~20090327.orig.tar.gz If I recall correctly you only need to make the .dsc, .orig.tar.gz and .diff.gz files available. > I never noticed at which stage of the build process the first three files > are created. Is it possible to create them without fully compiling the > package? > > Cheers, > > Vincent > >> Cheers >> Paul >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> >> To: Paul Leo <p....@uq.edu.au> >> Cc: Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org>, Michael Rutter <ma...@psu.edu>, >> Douglas Bates <ba...@stat.wisc.edu>, r-sig-debian >> <r-sig-debian@r-project.org> >> Subject: Re: [R-sig-Debian] Are there Debian/Ubuntu packages of the >> betaversions of R-2.9.0 >> Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:29:26 -0500 >> >> >> On 6 April 2009 at 10:04, Paul Leo wrote: >> | I not sure what the problem is but I'm a new ubuntu user , so forgive my >> | ignorance.. Why can I not have a stable and development version of R >> | installed and go between them as I wish? The library path includes the R >> | version number; can the binaries not go to /usr/local/R2.9 ? Guess I am >> | not sure what the problem is. >> >> /usr/local/ is yours, /usr is for the packaging system. That is a strict >> boundary that is never crossed. >> >> Under /usr, the current package lives in one place and does therefore not >> allow multiple versions. In theory, what you suggest is perfectly >> feasible. Emacs does it, and many other apps allow to have multiple >> versions >> installed. I once engineered the same rewrite to have several Octave >> versions >> installed. It is possible --- but it also requires a more-or-less >> complete >> rewrite of the package infrastructire, and then tests, of all associated >> scripts and files. I will have to leave that for other volunteers as I >> don;t >> have the time to drive that change. >> >> So in the short run, go with your own builds in /usr/local if you need >> several versions at the same time. >> >> | Yes all the Bioconductor development version is on R 2.9. There are many >> | thousands of bioconductor users who stay on the development version of >> | R . This is where I prefer to be, this was easy with windows, I could >> | install as many versions of R as I like 2.7, 2.8.1, 2.9 .... The >> | bioconductor libraries are smart enough to know the R version you are >> | running and use the correct repositories for their libraries. But that >> | is the dark ages I don't want to return to! >> | >> | The option of a virtual install seems unnecessary surely ? I am familiar >> | with that but I don't want to chop up my memory of each instance as I >> | need it all for some jobs. >> | >> | As you can tell this is my first foray into this topic and I certainly >> | don't to put any more demands on you time. I guess I did not realise it >> | was either one or the other 2.8.1 or 2.9.0 ? I did not anticipate that. >> | Is the reason just trivial , same excutable names and default install >> | path or is there more to it? >> | >> | I do not mind compiling from source etc; actually part of joining this >> | email group was to get a sense of what was the "standard approach" that >> | is used for ubuntu and development versions of R. I also wanted to get a >> | feel for ess compatibility with the development version of R. >> | >> | So summary >> | 1) I can't just install the stable and development versions from deb >> | files and have them play nice ? >> >> Sure. But not from .deb files as you can have exactly one R binary at the >> same time. >> >> [ But you can use that for the default R and then keep a bleeding edge one >> in >> /usr/local too. ] >> >> | 2) I can't compile from source code without secret sauce? >> >> Sure you can. It just won't be as integrated as the pre-packaged version. >> >> | I don't agree there should be a test for who can use the ubuntu >> | development version , it is development and unstable as so no one can >> | reasonable expect it to be foolproof. General direction are all that >> | anyone could reasonably expect. >> >> Most of us do not perceive Ubuntu to be the 'developer distro'. It really >> is >> easy enough to split this over several different machines too. I.e. under >> my >> desk is an Ubuntu box driving the desktop and a headless Debian box >> supporting additional development work. There are many possible >> approaches. >> What we attempt to provide for Ubuntu is a mainstream package to satisfy >> users of the _currently released_ R versions. >> >> Everybody is invited (and welcone) to start their own project for packages >> of >> a development version. But I think you just cannpt expect already-busy >> volunteers like Vincent, Michael or myself to do it for you. >> >> Cheers, Dirk >> >> | Cheers >> | Paul >> | >> | -----Original Message----- >> | From: Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> >> | To: Michael Rutter <ma...@psu.edu> >> | Cc: Paul Leo <p....@uq.edu.au>, Douglas Bates <ba...@stat.wisc.edu>, >> | r-sig-debian <r-sig-debian@r-project.org> >> | Subject: Re: [R-sig-Debian] Are there Debian/Ubuntu packages of the >> | betaversions of R-2.9.0 >> | Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 08:18:09 -0500 >> | >> | >> | On 5 April 2009 at 08:36, Michael Rutter wrote: >> | | If we make the beta debs of R available for Ubuntu, I think they >> | | should be in a separate repository, as not to be pushed to people >> | | uncomfortable with beta software. If we went down this path, we could >> | | also limit ourselves to the latest Ubuntu release as well as the >> | | latest long term service release versions of Ubuntu. >> | | >> | | I do not use bioconductor, so I have to ask how many packages are >> | | built in the approximately one month period the R beta is available >> | | for public release? I visited the web site, and there is a devel >> | | branch. Are all of those packages built against R 2.9? >> | | >> | | My personal opinion is that we should not follow the google definition >> | | of beta, and reserve the tag for testing purposes. If you want to >> | | test the beta version, there should be a minimum amount of "expertise" >> | | required for entry. For Ubuntu, having to compile from source could >> | | be that bar. We could supply directions on how to build from the deb >> | | source packages. It would probably need a script that makes the >> | | corrections needed to compile under Ubuntu. >> | >> | I agree. I think we should not push down 2.9.0 on all Ubuntu users. >> | >> | Paul, given that Debian does have the 2.9.0 deb files ready >> | for the picking, you could also try a chroot or virtual machine running >> | Debian unstable. By using a virtual machine (like virtualbox, very easy >> to >> | set up in stock Ubuntu) you get a way to have the bleeding edge software >> | running on your system without affecting the general stability of your >> | system. >> | >> | Otherwise, take the Debian .deb source and ask us for help with local >> package >> | builds based on those source (as e.g. right now where Debian's package >> has a >> | debian/rules which uses dh_prep which you need to turn back to dh_clean >> etc >> | pp). I sometimes do that at work (eg to get current Debian MPI packages >> onto >> | Ubuntu etc). >> | >> | Dirk >> | >> >> >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> R-SIG-Debian mailing list >> R-SIG-Debian@r-project.org >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-debian > > _______________________________________________ > R-SIG-Debian mailing list > R-SIG-Debian@r-project.org > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-debian > _______________________________________________ R-SIG-Debian mailing list R-SIG-Debian@r-project.org https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-debian