Bug#617296: Any progress with RStudio
Hi, I have not yet found any link to a VCS where RStudio packaging is going on nor what the packaging status might be. It would be great to have an update about this. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- 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/20150731162252.gm2...@an3as.eu
Bug#617296: Any Progress with RStudio?
Reading this bug's history it seems the removal of gwt from unstable stalled the packaging effort. I think gwt could be re-added to unstable since there is a new upstream release and the removal happened due to bugs not fixed for a long time. I would be interested in using an RStudio package and I'm willing to spend some time on it (but but I don't have enough free time to convert this RFP to ITP now :-)). It would be great if anyone who looked into packaging already would list the dependencies required for clean packaging potentially opening RFP-s for them and listing those RFP-s as blocking bugs here. Cheers, Balint -- 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/53ff627b.2010...@balintreczey.hu
Bug#617296: Any Progress with RStudio?
Hi,
any news about rstudio packaging? Something we could drain from
${VCS}.debian.org for testing?
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 06:45:11PM -0300, Rogério Brito wrote:
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/BCFC
http://cynic.cc/blog/ : github.com/rbrito : profiles.google.com/rbrito
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
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/20140814061150.ga26...@an3as.eu
Bug#617296: Any Progress with RStudio?
Hi Dirk, On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 03:56:06PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: On 14 May 2014 at 22:43, Andreas Tille wrote: | Why not commiting your work to Debian Science repository and let others | have a look? I'd be interested and might spent some time cycles into it. Well if you have spare cycles, would you mind looking at the various r-cran-* packages some of which are __several__ CRAN releases behind? ... A casual look at http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=debian-med-packag...@lists.alioth.debian.org I'm watching this page regularly and I'm pretty aware of this. You remember that we do not share the same opinion about how important always up to date pages are? We have good reasons to add packages and we try to do a sensible upgrade path for our target users. Please accept that people have different preferences than you. Thanks Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- 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/20140515061253.ga9...@an3as.eu
Bug#617296: Any Progress with RStudio?
[Bug CCed since the discussion was started there - should be moved to Debian Med devel list, but I personally do not have to say much more probably.] Hi Charles, On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 04:24:06PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Part of the bitrot might be caused by the fact that on my side, I have stopped working on R packages because the FTP team made quite clear that my ... The main problem with this rule is that it makes it too hard to introduce new packages. While I agree that geting new R packages accepted has become harder by the new rule I think this is totally different from the issue Dirk was addressing. He is claiming since a long time that we are not coping with upstream in our packaging and we should rather add less packages. Even if you named a counter example it is usually not needed in most cases to add new dependencies - we are simply lagging behind upstream despite the fact that usually upgrading a R package is brain dead simple. I agree that the pure fact Dirk is stating is true: Yes, we are lagging behind upstream. My point is that we are delivering Debian stable *releases* to scientists and we are offering a good amount of quite up to date software in testing/unstable. I think there was not a single request for a new upstream version available from any user who was not answered right in time (= less than one week) accept in the case of severe technical difficiulties (for instance r-bioc-cummerbund took quite long for a long chain of new dependencies in times of slow acceptance of packages). But these difficulties are not the point here. I personally do not see my time well spent to hunt behind any minor CRAN package update which are quite frequent. I rather do regular overhaul of the R packages at certain points in time (preferably) in time before we freeze. I also plan such an overhaul in June to get all the BioConductor packages refreshed. Everybody else is really welcome to push needed changes to SVN / Git and ping me for an upload. However, the simple fact that some R package has a new upstream version does not pull a trigger on my side. Dirk has simply a different opinion which is fine for me but I'm bored to discuss this over and over. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- 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/20140515081531.gg9...@an3as.eu
Bug#617296: Any Progress with RStudio?
On 15 May 2014 at 10:15, Andreas Tille wrote: | simple. I agree that the pure fact Dirk is stating is true: Yes, we | are lagging behind upstream. And you make that a policy. I don't think that flies. Remember this line: Our priorities are our users | My point is that we are delivering Debian stable *releases* to You just singlehandedly redefined Debian as not caring about current packages in unstable / testing. I have been here almost 19 years, and I have met many maintainers. Not one shares the view that we should rot packages and only update for stable. That is just plain nonsense. | fine for me but I'm bored to discuss this over and over. Me too as you will never change your mind. FWIW to install (or update) R package I use two five-liner R scripts (included as examples in my 'littler' package) as I would much rather have __current__ packages in /usr/local/ than your bitrot in /usr. And then there is Don Armstrong's marvelous debian-r.debian.net which renders all this moot. This is really really sad and upsetting as I have poured a decade into making R good on Debian, and maintain a hundred __current and bugfree__ packages. If I may add, I do run into people thanking me for making R on Debian awesome. To have you sabotage this with planned bitrot is just sad. But maybe I will write some posts over on the R side explaining to people they should just avoid and ignore your packages. Which is a win for you too as you'll never get the bug reports asking for an update. Don't bother following up. Dirk -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com -- 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/21364.42539.745951.104...@max.nulle.part
Bug#617296: Any Progress with RStudio?
Hi there.
On Sep 06 2013, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 6 September 2013 at 05:30, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| On 6 September 2013 at 16:38, Lifeng Sun wrote:
| | IMHO, the most difficult part to get rstudio in Debian official
| | archive is that rstudio build-depends on several (5 or so) Java
| | packages missing in Debian. The upstream approach is to ship them as
| | convenient libraries in binary package, which is unreasonable for
| | Debian official package, and it's quite a lot of nontrivial work to
| | package them first. For example, one of them is gwt, a large complex
| | Java library once in unstable removed recently due to grave bugs.
|
| Really? I am pretty good friends with the RStudio team, and know them as
| hard-core C++-ers. There are (were?) newer Qt parts, Boost parts, ... in
| there but I'd be very surprised to find Java.
Checked with upstream over IM, and yes, they do use Java to generate 300k of
Javascript. So GWT is used for that.
Is there anybody that wants to get rstudio packaged, even if in a dirty
state, while other dependencies are not yet in Debian?
I just started looking at the source and it seems to mostly compile with
what we have in Debian, but I don't know (yet) how to convince the build
system to use the local hunspell or the local mathjax.
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.
Regards,
--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFC
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/20140514200830.ga20...@ime.usp.br
Bug#617296: Any Progress with RStudio?
Hi Rogério On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 05:08:32PM -0300, Rogério Brito wrote: Hi there. On Sep 06 2013, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: Checked with upstream over IM, and yes, they do use Java to generate 300k of Javascript. So GWT is used for that. Is there anybody that wants to get rstudio packaged, even if in a dirty state, while other dependencies are not yet in Debian? I just started looking at the source and it seems to mostly compile with what we have in Debian, but I don't know (yet) how to convince the build system to use the local hunspell or the local mathjax. 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. Why not commiting your work to Debian Science repository and let others have a look? I'd be interested and might spent some time cycles into it. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- 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/20140514204346.ga30...@an3as.eu
Bug#617296: Any Progress with RStudio?
On 14 May 2014 at 22:43, Andreas Tille wrote: | Why not commiting your work to Debian Science repository and let others | have a look? I'd be interested and might spent some time cycles into it. Well if you have spare cycles, would you mind looking at the various r-cran-* packages some of which are __several__ CRAN releases behind? I can help with the package level diagnosis from the R end of things (that is after all what my CRANberries at http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/cranberries/ already does, and stores in a local database) but I have not yet had time to look at accessing the Debian DB to check out versions. A casual look at http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=debian-med-packag...@lists.alioth.debian.org reveals r-cran-epir r-cran-msm r-bioc-biobas r-bioc-limma r-bioc-affy r-bioc-affyio and dozens more to be behind -- there is a LOT more pink (behind) than green (current). I don't think that is good, and I don't understand why you folks keep adding packages only to let them fall behind. Many seem to have had a single upload, only to get forgotten later. Dirk -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com -- 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/21363.55398.603994.386...@max.nulle.part
Bug#617296: Any Progress with RStudio?
On 14 May 2014 at 17:08, Rogério Brito wrote: | Is there anybody that wants to get rstudio packaged, even if in a dirty | state, while other dependencies are not yet in Debian? | | I just started looking at the source and it seems to mostly compile with | what we have in Debian, but I don't know (yet) how to convince the build | system to use the local hunspell or the local mathjax. | | 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. 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. I am not sure how ready this is even for Debian unstable, and they _do_ provide ready-made .deb packages that users like myself deploy. I can ask tomorrow, but RStudio is still a pretty fast moving target. Dirk -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com -- 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/21363.55594.74962.392...@max.nulle.part
Bug#617296: Any Progress with RStudio?
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/BCFC
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
Bug#617296: Any Progress with RStudio?
On 14 May 2014 at 18:45, Rogério Brito wrote: | 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? Maybe :) | 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. Yes. And eg that newest pandoc stuff and their underlying rmarkdown package is mindboggling as well. Those guys are really good. | 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 Agreed. But whenever I bring it up with JJ et al the answer is ... that they just need too much stuff that is too current ... Eg a whole slew of Qt things. Might be best to file a bug report with them. I'll ask JJ tomorrow who besides him a good contact would be. I presume you started off their GitHub repo? | 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). Dunno either. Dirk -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com -- 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/21363.59264.251348.165...@max.nulle.part
Bug#617296: Any Progress with RStudio?
Hi there.
On Jun 18 2013, Ulrich Dangel wrote:
* Benj. Mako Hill wrote [19.06.12 17:11]:
Hi,
any status update for the RStudio package?
Indeed, R studio is probably one of the important packages related to R that
is missing from our archives and, to avoid holding a lock forever, I just
went ahead and retitled this from a RFP to an ITP.
If there is indeed interest in packaging R Studio, Lifeng, can you say so?
The last public activity from yours was making this bug an ITP on 12 Oct
2012, which soon will be 12 months old.
I am sure that other people (Mako?, Dirk?) may want to sponsor packages that
you have ready, if you have them.
If my renaming was in error, just go ahead and change it back, but, please,
keep the bug updated with news/progress on the packaging effort. Getting the
package to be team-maintained is helpful if one can't cope with upload in a
timely fashion.
Regards from someone that would love to have this in Debian.
P.S.: I am willing to lend a hand in packaging, but I already have my hands
full of packages and would not be the sole maintainer of such a package.
--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFC
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: http://lists.debian.org/20130906055826.ga2...@ime.usp.br
Bug#617296: Any Progress with RStudio?
Hi, On 02:58 Fri 09/06/13 Sep , Rogério Brito wrote: If there is indeed interest in packaging R Studio, Lifeng, can you say so? The last public activity from yours was making this bug an ITP on 12 Oct 2012, which soon will be 12 months old. A short answer is yes, but ... IMHO, the most difficult part to get rstudio in Debian official archive is that rstudio build-depends on several (5 or so) Java packages missing in Debian. The upstream approach is to ship them as convenient libraries in binary package, which is unreasonable for Debian official package, and it's quite a lot of nontrivial work to package them first. For example, one of them is gwt, a large complex Java library once in unstable removed recently due to grave bugs. Regards, Lifeng -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130906083812.GE24142@string
Bug#617296: Any Progress with RStudio?
On 6 September 2013 at 16:38, Lifeng Sun wrote: | Hi, | | On 02:58 Fri 09/06/13 Sep , Rogério Brito wrote: | If there is indeed interest in packaging R Studio, Lifeng, can you say so? | The last public activity from yours was making this bug an ITP on 12 Oct | 2012, which soon will be 12 months old. | | A short answer is yes, but ... | | IMHO, the most difficult part to get rstudio in Debian official | archive is that rstudio build-depends on several (5 or so) Java | packages missing in Debian. The upstream approach is to ship them as | convenient libraries in binary package, which is unreasonable for | Debian official package, and it's quite a lot of nontrivial work to | package them first. For example, one of them is gwt, a large complex | Java library once in unstable removed recently due to grave bugs. Really? I am pretty good friends with the RStudio team, and know them as hard-core C++-ers. There are (were?) newer Qt parts, Boost parts, ... in there but I'd be very surprised to find Java. [ And yes, it remains a very large and complicated package. I have no capacity to help, sorry. ] Dirk -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21033.44738.703768.149...@max.nulle.part
Bug#617296: Any Progress with RStudio?
On 6 September 2013 at 05:30, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | | On 6 September 2013 at 16:38, Lifeng Sun wrote: | | Hi, | | | | On 02:58 Fri 09/06/13 Sep , Rogério Brito wrote: | | If there is indeed interest in packaging R Studio, Lifeng, can you say so? | | The last public activity from yours was making this bug an ITP on 12 Oct | | 2012, which soon will be 12 months old. | | | | A short answer is yes, but ... | | | | IMHO, the most difficult part to get rstudio in Debian official | | archive is that rstudio build-depends on several (5 or so) Java | | packages missing in Debian. The upstream approach is to ship them as | | convenient libraries in binary package, which is unreasonable for | | Debian official package, and it's quite a lot of nontrivial work to | | package them first. For example, one of them is gwt, a large complex | | Java library once in unstable removed recently due to grave bugs. | | Really? I am pretty good friends with the RStudio team, and know them as | hard-core C++-ers. There are (were?) newer Qt parts, Boost parts, ... in | there but I'd be very surprised to find Java. Checked with upstream over IM, and yes, they do use Java to generate 300k of Javascript. So GWT is used for that. JJ also mentioned that they need to upgrade to Qt 5.1.1 which entail a number of changes; probably not worth packaging before that. The 0.99 release may be a good starting point at which they plan to update their dependencies. So wait and see.. Dirk -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21033.57718.772750.962...@max.nulle.part
Bug#617296: Any Progress with RStudio?
Any progress to report on getting RStudio in Debian? The software has a full debian/ directory and well functioning debs available on the website so I wonder what the hold up is. If we think its unlikely that others will get to it, mayb ewe can switch it back to an RFP or I can help look into doing the upload. In any case, the software is great and some people I'm working with are using it extensively. I'd love to know if I could help! Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill m...@debian.org http://mako.cc/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto signature.asc Description: Digital signature
