On 24/04/2018 5:50 AM, Peter Simons wrote:
Duncan Murdoch writes:
>> ./configure --without-recommended-packages && make && make check
>
> So you're getting paid to do what you do, but you want the volunteers
> in R Core to do some work for you for free.
You are jumping to conclusions. N
> Peter Simons
> on Tue, 24 Apr 2018 11:50:22 +0200 writes:
> Duncan Murdoch writes:
>>> ./configure --without-recommended-packages && make && make check
>>
>> So you're getting paid to do what you do, but you want the volunteers
>> in R Core to do some work for y
Duncan Murdoch writes:
>> ./configure --without-recommended-packages && make && make check
>
> So you're getting paid to do what you do, but you want the volunteers
> in R Core to do some work for you for free.
You are jumping to conclusions. Nobody pays me a single cent to package
R for Nix;
On 23/04/2018 12:28 PM, Peter Simons wrote:
Hi Dirk,
> I have been doing for R for about 20 years (if you count the time I
> assisted Doug Bates when he was still the maintainer) (and longer for
> Debian), and you seem to follow the same model we set up years ago of
> splitting the conte
Peter,
I think we are on the same page, but there is little I can do for you here.
Ultimately you are asking R Core to do you a favor. More below.
On 23 April 2018 at 18:28, Peter Simons wrote:
| Hi Dirk,
|
| > I have been doing for R for about 20 years (if you count the time I
| > assisted D
Hi Dirk,
> I have been doing for R for about 20 years (if you count the time I
> assisted Doug Bates when he was still the maintainer) (and longer for
> Debian), and you seem to follow the same model we set up years ago of
> splitting the content of r-recommended (itself a virtual package) off
On 23 April 2018 at 15:14, Peter Simons wrote:
| Duncan Murdoch writes:
|
| > You can likely get rid of most of them by building with the recommended
| > packages.
|
| unfortunately, this is not an option for us. For various reasons, our
| build process requires that we build those packages s
Duncan Murdoch writes:
> You can likely get rid of most of them by building with the recommended
> packages.
unfortunately, this is not an option for us. For various reasons, our
build process requires that we build those packages separately. Ricardo
appears to be in a similar situation and he
Hi Dirk,
> On 23 April 2018 at 12:33, Peter Simons wrote:
> | Hi,
> |
> | I just tried to upgrade Nixpkgs to R 3.5.0, but unfortunately the new
> | version fails its regression test suite. We configure the build using
> | the flags "--without-recommended-packages", in case that's relevant. You
>
On 23/04/2018 6:33 AM, Peter Simons wrote:
Hi,
I just tried to upgrade Nixpkgs to R 3.5.0, but unfortunately the new
version fails its regression test suite. We configure the build using
the flags "--without-recommended-packages", in case that's relevant. You
can see a complete build log with al
On 23 April 2018 at 12:33, Peter Simons wrote:
| Hi,
|
| I just tried to upgrade Nixpkgs to R 3.5.0, but unfortunately the new
| version fails its regression test suite. We configure the build using
| the flags "--without-recommended-packages", in case that's relevant. You
| can see a complete bu
Hi,
I just tried to upgrade Nixpkgs to R 3.5.0, but unfortunately the new
version fails its regression test suite. We configure the build using
the flags "--without-recommended-packages", in case that's relevant. You
can see a complete build log with all relevant information at [1].
Anyway, the te
12 matches
Mail list logo
