[R] Failure of update.packages()

[Peter Dalgaard]

plummer at iarc.fr writes:

> Quoting Jari Oksanen <jarioksa at sun3.oulu.fi>:
> 
> > On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 13:52 +0100, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> > > I M S White <iwhite at staffmail.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> > >
> > > > Can anyone explain why with latest version of R (2.0.1) on FC3, installed
> > > > from R-2.0.1-0.fdr.2.fc3.i386.rpm, update.packages() produces the message
> > > >
> > > > /usr/lib/R/bin/Rcmd exec: INSTALL: not found.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed /usr/lib/R/bin seems to lack various shell scripts (INSTALL,
> > > > REMOVE, etc).
> >
> > > You need to install the R-devel package too:
> > > 1
> > > R-devel-2.0.1-0.fdr.2.fc3.i386.rpm
> > >
> > > The big idea is that this will suck in all the required compilers,
> > > libraries, and include files via RPM dependencies, but users with
> > > limited disk space may be content with the binaries of R+recommended
> > > packages.
> > >
> > This kind of problems were to be anticipated, weren't they? The great
> > divide between use-only and devel packages is a rpm packaging standard,
> > but not very useful in this case: it splits a 568K devel chip from a
> > 15.4M chunk of base R. Moreover, you don't have a repository of binary
> > packages for Linux which means that not many people can use the 568K
> > saving in download times (saving in disk space is more considerable of
> > course). So are there plans for binary Linux packages for other distros
> > than Debian so that people could use the non-devel piece of R only?
> >
> > cheers, jari oksanen
> 
> The splitting is an experiment (and I said so when I announced it).
> It does have unforseen consequences, like implicating me in maintaining a
> repository of binary RPMs for CRAN packages, which I'm not particularly keen
> on.
> 
> So I shall probably revert to a single RPM, and force the installation
> requirements to be the same as the build requirements.  This was, in fact,
> Peter's suggestion which shows that not everybody is as short-sighted as me.
> 
> Martyn

Hmm... Actually, you had sort of convinced me that the split might be
a good idea. Point being of course that it's not the 568K that gets
shaved off in R-devel, it's the 12M for gcc + the 5M for g77 + 28M for
perl + more, which are only needed for installing packages and are
therefore not dependencies of the main R RPM. Maintaining binary
package RPMs was never in the cards as I saw it. However, it then only
makes sense if a sizable proportion of R users are never going to
install packages. Otherwise you get cost of having to explain the
point repeatedly, at basically zero benefit.

-- 
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3  
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N   
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk)             FAX: (+45) 35327907