On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 11:08:26 PM UTC+1, François Bissey wrote:
>
>
>
> On 22/10/2017, at 10:53, Dima Pasechnik >
> wrote:
>
> rpy2 is installable using pip (I don't know its requirements); I suppose
> it's maintained well, so the only issue here is of technical kind, pointed
> out
> On 22/10/2017, at 10:53, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> rpy2 is installable using pip (I don't know its requirements); I suppose it's
> maintained well, so the only issue here is of technical kind, pointed out by
> Francois: libR, the R library needed by rpy2, links
> against system blas/lapack
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Emmanuel Charpentier
wrote:
> The first one *should* easily use a systemwide R. It probably does not
> require the presence of R on a target system to be compiled (but all of this
> has to be checked !).
> The second one would be difficult to maintain, given asynch
On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 10:34:41 PM UTC+1, Emmanuel Charpentier
wrote:
>
>
>
> Le vendredi 20 octobre 2017 17:30:54 UTC+2, Nils Bruin a écrit :
>>
>> Do we actually get real benefit from packaging R with sage?
>>
>
> Good question. It has been discussed before. It boils down to a couple
Le vendredi 20 octobre 2017 17:30:54 UTC+2, Nils Bruin a écrit :
>
> Do we actually get real benefit from packaging R with sage?
>
Good question. It has been discussed before. It boils down to a couple of
factors :
- R has been included in Sage for a long time. We do not know which Sage
Le vendredi 20 octobre 2017 18:27:39 UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :
>
> That is what I said a couple of times too.
>
> In particular, IMHO most R users use an IDE called R-studio, so for them
> the Sage's one is not very useful.
>
R Studio tries to kill two birds with one stone :
- rapid
