On Feb 1, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Martin Maechler wrote:
>> Simon Urbanek
>>on Mon, 1 Feb 2016 08:36:56 -0500 writes:
>
>> On Feb 1, 2016, at 4:16 AM, Martin Maechler
>> wrote:
>
> [..]
> Alba Pompeo
> on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:23:26 -0200 writes:
> Here is my log from 'make check' using an Intel i5 64-bit
> processor - http://pastebin.com/raw/N6SYAuFX Here is
> Isaac's log from 'make check' using an Intel Atom 32-bit
> processor -
On Feb 1, 2016, at 4:16 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
>> Alba Pompeo
>>on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:23:26 -0200 writes:
>
>> Here is my log from 'make check' using an Intel i5 64-bit
>> processor - http://pastebin.com/raw/N6SYAuFX Here is
On Feb 1, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Alba Pompeo wrote:
> @Simon. Here's what I did.
> I checked out R revision 70059.
> Ran export r_cv_libc_stack_end=no. (otherwise it would give that error
> we talked about before)
No, the whole point was to test this behavior. I see that the
@Simon. Here's what I did.
I checked out R revision 70059.
Ran export r_cv_libc_stack_end=no. (otherwise it would give that error
we talked about before)
Ran ./configure --without-recommended-packages. (otherwise it would
complain of not finding ./src/library/Recommended/MASS_*.tar.gz)
Ran make.
But it looks like R is working. I found the R binary on build/bin/R
I ran it and it works.
Should I be worried about the make check log?
@Isaac Dunham
Can you please test this on your system too?
Maybe R can be packaged soon?
Ciao.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Alba Pompeo