[Rd] the case of building R snapshot without svn nor network connection.

[Hin-Tak Leung]

Network access is *not* a given, nor is the privilege of installing arbitrary "uncertified" and "non-essential" tools - whatever the meaning of "uncertified" and "non-essential" are, those being defined, as is "design goal", etc, by some small committee.

It is a very common scenario, e.g. banks & telecom, some part of public/government service and health care. This does not seem to sink in without repeating.

--- On Sat, 16/3/13, Hin-Tak Leung <htl10 at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> I'll quantify the first part - R is
> perhaps the only public software project hosted on a
> subversion repository for which the result of 'svn export
> ...' does not build. Not only that it does not build, but
> make it a feature that it does not build.
> 
> Very few other projects actively try to go in that
> direction.
> 
> --- On Fri, 15/3/13, Hin-Tak Leung <hintak_leung at yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> 
> > The decision to actively discourage
> > non-subsersion usage of snapshot build is already made
> > (r62183). So I am just here to register a differing
> > opinion.
> > 
> > - it is not about subversion vs
> other-version-control-tools.
> > There are two parts of R's dev build process which
> requires
> > an active network connection - tools/rsync-recommended
> and
> > capturing `svn info` into R's headers. The former can
> be
> > overridden with "./configure
> > --with-recommended-packages=no". A few changes had been
> made
> > in the last 6 months to make the latter mandatory. It
> used
> > to be optional.
> > 
> > --- there are genuine needs for testing snapshots in a
> > non-networked minimalist environment - e.g. banks or
> telecom
> > industries - where one wants a "standardised host"
> build,
> > and often it means an "outdated host"; or in a virtual
> > machine environment - which are non-networked for
> security
> > reasons, and also do not have tools beyond necessary
> for
> > compiling and building. This is quite a common
> scenario.
> > 
> > --- AFAIK, 6 months ago, a snapshot copied to an
> > non-networked host will build with "./configure
> > --with-recommended-packages=no". Of course copying
> those
> > recommended package tar balls across would be nicer.
> This is
> > sadly no longer the case.
> > 
> > - dependent on `svn info` and sitting on top of a svn
> > checkout possibly also affects cross-compiling. But
> then, it
> > is not clear whether it is still possible to
> cross-compile
> > R, since quite a few changes have been made to remove
> the
> > capability of cross-compiling R for windows on unix
> hosts in
> > the last few years. 
> > 
> > - testing dev snapshots is about trying things and
> fixing
> > bugs before release. Making it difficult for non-core
> people
> > to "try", seem to go against that ethos. If that's the
> case,
> > maybe the repository could be closed off to anonymous
> check
> > outs altogether, just to make it clear that testing
> > snapshots before releases or even close to release, is
> not
> > welcomed. Just a thought.
> > 
> > - although the official repository of the "main" linux
> > kernel branch is git-based, there are mercurial
> mirrors;
> > AFAIK the digital video broadcasting hardware support
> of the
> > linux kernel is officially in mercurial repositories,
> but
> > have git mirrors; likewise much of Xorg's is in
> mercurial
> > but have git mirrors. I haven't heard of any much
> bigger
> > public projects than R where some actively discourage
> > others.
> > 
> > - To be honest r62183 itself is probably a good reason
> to
> > move away from server-side repositories to distributed
> > repositories (hg/git/arch/bzr). Local enhancements -
> i.e. an
> > in-house fork - some of which are never going upstream,
> such
> > as a local revert of r62183 (or a local revert of any
> other
> > upstream commits) is one reason why some have
> distributed
> > repositories.
> > 
> > Lastly, a minor grip. The current head of the HK
> government
> > is probably sometimes called "HK Leung", just as some
> might
> > call a certain old lady "UK Windsor" and a certain
> black
> > person "US Obama".
> >
>