[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

Le mardi 30 août 2016 19:33:20 UTC+2, leif a écrit : > > Making R optional *will* break existing code. > > How do you come to that conclusion? > To be precise : any code relying on R being standard and using it without bothering checking this assumption. I have such code myself (e. g. a cou

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: > Well... Tha was ... instructive ... > > We see to have two consistent options to keep R a standard package : > > 1. Keep R as a standard package, including the binaries. This involves : > * make xz a standard package ; > * port the old-style pcre package

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

Well... Tha was ... instructive ... We see to have two consistent options to keep R a standard package : 1. Keep R as a standard package, including the binaries. This involves : - make xz a standard package ; - port the old-style pcre package as a new-style standard package ;

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

> ... which was less of a problem with our "legacy" spkgs, as you in many > cases could simply install an older or a more recent version when > available /somewhere/, or even easily create your own, just replacing > the upstream version in the src/ folder. > > More or less just out of curiosi

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

By the way I've got all we need for the upgrade. Just got to put it into a branch. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegr

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

kcrisman wrote: > > I think maybe even a better distinction than "sage-the-distro" is to > call it "SageMath, the Application". As far as users of the > application are concerned I agree the it should have the goal of being > a general purpose stack of mathematics software. For s

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

There is a SAGE accounting with is very interfering if you don't write sagemath in a research ! Le samedi 20 août 2016 16:09:20 UTC+2, Emmanuel Charpentier a écrit : > > While trying my hand at porting > R 3.3.1 to Sage (needs_review, by the way), I found

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

> I think maybe even a better distinction than "sage-the-distro" is to > call it "SageMath, the Application". As far as users of the > application are concerned I agree the it should have the goal of being > a general purpose stack of mathematics software. For short I'll call > the applicat

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 6:58 PM, kcrisman wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:54:45 PM UTC-4, leif wrote: >> >> kcrisman wrote: >> > >> > Make R optional? (Nothing in Sage depends on it, except for the >> > interface to it, including Rpy2.) >> > >> > Gosh, R has been standard fo

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:54:45 PM UTC-4, leif wrote: > > kcrisman wrote: > > > > Make R optional? (Nothing in Sage depends on it, except for the > > interface to it, including Rpy2.) > > > > Gosh, R has been standard for*ever*, practically, > > Hört sich nach Schwäbischem D

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

William Stein wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Erik Bray wrote: >> I think almost any dependency that Sage-the-Python-package can work >> without should be considered "optional" insofar as installing Sage is >> concerned. I think it's fine for it to be a stadard part of >> Sage-the-Dist

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Erik Bray wrote: > I think almost any dependency that Sage-the-Python-package can work > without should be considered "optional" insofar as installing Sage is > concerned. I think it's fine for it to be a stadard part of > Sage-the-Distribution. > > But this gets

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:54 PM, leif wrote: > kcrisman wrote: >> >> Make R optional? (Nothing in Sage depends on it, except for the >> interface to it, including Rpy2.) >> >> Gosh, R has been standard for*ever*, practically, > > Hört sich nach Schwäbischem Dreiklang an. > > >> and is of

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

kcrisman wrote: > > Make R optional? (Nothing in Sage depends on it, except for the > interface to it, including Rpy2.) > > Gosh, R has been standard for*ever*, practically, Hört sich nach Schwäbischem Dreiklang an. > and is often heavily > advertised as a good reason to use Sage. Th

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: > I agree that losing a standard package for failing to build it on one > particular target would be bad. > > From Trac#20523 : > > Replying to [comment:11 embray]: > On Cygwin I needed to `apt-cyg install liblzma-devel` (if you

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

I agree that losing a standard package for failing to build it on one particular target would be bad. >From Trac#20523 : Replying to [comment:11 embray]: On Cygwin I needed to `apt-cyg install liblzma-devel` (if you have `apt-cyg`, otherwise use setup as

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

> > Make R optional? (Nothing in Sage depends on it, except for the > interface to it, including Rpy2.) > > Gosh, R has been standard for*ever*, practically, and is often heavily advertised as a good reason to use Sage. There are certainly many who have been using them together (as mention

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: > From Trac#20523 : > > Replying to [comment:9 tscrim]: >> I get a failure trying to install this on Cygwin32 with >> {{{ >> checking for lzma_version_number in -llzma... no >> configure: error: "liblzma library and headers are r

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

>From Trac#20523 : Replying to [comment:9 tscrim]: > I get a failure trying to install this on Cygwin32 with > {{{ > checking for lzma_version_number in -llzma... no > configure: error: "liblzma library and headers are required" > Error configuring R. > }}}

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:15:23 PM UTC+2, Emmanuel Charpentier > wrote: > Le samedi 20 août 2016 19:46:45 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori a écrit : > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:44:15 PM UTC+2, Jean-Pierre > Flori wrote: > On Saturda

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:15:23 PM UTC+2, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: > > > Le samedi 20 août 2016 19:46:45 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori a écrit : >> >> >> >> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:44:15 PM UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:05:27 PM

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

Le samedi 20 août 2016 19:46:45 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori a écrit : > > > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:44:15 PM UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:05:27 PM UTC+2, leif wrote: >>> >>> Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: >>> > While trying my hand

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 6:46:45 PM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:44:15 PM UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:05:27 PM UTC+2, leif wrote: >>> >>> Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: >>> > While trying my hand <

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:44:15 PM UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:05:27 PM UTC+2, leif wrote: >> >> Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: >> > While trying my hand at >> porting >> > R 3.3.1 to Sage (needs_review

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:05:27 PM UTC+2, leif wrote: > > Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: > > While trying my hand at > porting > > R 3.3.1 to Sage (needs_review, by the way), I found this in the > > current R Installation and Administration manual

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: > While trying my hand at porting > R 3.3.1 to Sage (needs_review, by the way), I found this in the > current R Installation and Administration manual > : > >