Le 09/10/13 23:43, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
On 9 October 2013 at 23:13, Romain Francois wrote:
| Le 09/10/13 03:41, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
| >
| > On 8 October 2013 at 16:53, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > | | This is also what's done in e.g. Rcpp.package.skeleton. However,
following the
| > | | new guidelines from CRAN, RcppLdFlags was exported, but not LdFlags. I
wonder
| > |
| > | Darn. Error on my part. It should have been LdFlags. That was the
intent.
| > | Oh well.
| >
| > Minor correction: Seems we need both. So back to export RcppLdFlags(), but
| > thanks to Kevin also exporting LdFlags(). Done in svn rev4566.
| >
| > Dirk
|
| One good thing about the previous system was that other packages could
| follow the same convention and also have a hidden LdFlags function
| giving information about what is required to link against it.
|
| I do it, e.g. on the dplyrRcpp package.
|
| Now that it is exported, I get this when I load dplyrRcpp which is
| annoying:
|
|
| L'objet suivant est masqué from ‘package:Rcpp’:
|
| LdFlags
Gosh, that sucks. It'll bite a few of mine too.
| What would be the recommendation for such third party packages that also
| ship a library.
Don't know, and am open for suggestions.
Maybe the local packages need to rename their version?
That will then quickly become a mess. Having the convention
package:::LdFlags() was fine.
Or perhaps we could centralize within Rcpp, i.e. have something like:
PKG_LIBS = `$(R_HOME)/bin/Rscript -e "Rcpp::LdFlags('foo')"`
and we would just have to leverage the inline plugin for package "foo'
there.
Or maybe I got it all wrong and we get by with fewer exports? I am (as
usual) open for all sorts of changes at the Rcpp level (provided they don't
break anything).
| Was it really a problem that we called LdFlags with :::, did R CMD check
| look for it in Makevars and Makevars.win ?
CRAN / R Core thought so and told everybody who ran 'R CMD check' with a new
version of R(-devel). That has been going on for a few weeks. Not sure if
you regularly build r-devel or run R CMD check, but it's been there for a
good while (and check R's NEWS commit log if you need to know more).
I think R 3.0.2 may now do it too; see NEWS.
And see Kevin's email from yesterday. I had also gotten private email from
another maintainer who apparently had CRAN yell at him over this. <Sigh>
So from the Rcpp side we have little choice but to export LdFlags() as others
are
calling it, and R CMD check now complains about the use -- unless it is
exported.
Sure.
| It is not really a problem for me, I can eliminate the need for a
| library in dplyrRcpp.
|
| Would it perhaps make sense to think about standard ways for R packages
| to register what they need. We have a system like this for inline
| plugins, maybe it would be interesting to move this up in R and let
| packages communicate in some way (perhaps in DESCRIPTION) what they need.
Sounds good, make a proposal, get buy-in from R Core and I'll gladly adapt my
other packages once that is implemented.
Dirk
I just meant to start a discussion. I'll adapt my package so that it
does not need to build a library.
--
Romain Francois
Professional R Enthusiast
+33(0) 6 28 91 30 30
_______________________________________________
Rcpp-devel mailing list
Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org
https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
