[R] [SPAM] - Re: R package development in windows - BayesianFilter detected spam

[Gabor Grothendieck]

I think that should be the default in order to protect the user.  Protecting
the user from this sort of annoying conflict is important for a professionally
working product that gets along with the rest of the Windows system.

On 5/5/07, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch at stats.uwo.ca> wrote:
> On 04/05/2007 9:32 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > It certainly would be excellent if installing perl could be eliminated.
> >
> > One additional thing that I really dislike about the R installation is that
> > one needs "find" on one's path and that conflicts with "find" on Windows
> > so other applications unrelated to R that use scripts can suddenly break
> > because of R.  If that could be solved at the same time it would be nice.
>
> At a minimum we should be able to wrap the calls to find in a macro, so
> you could change the macro in MkRules and rename your copy from Rtools
> to remove the conflict.  I'll take a look.
>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
> >
> > On 5/4/07, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch at stats.uwo.ca> wrote:
> >> On 04/05/2007 4:25 PM, Greg Snow wrote:
> >>> I have used the pp/par combination for Perl before.  It is pretty straight forward to convert an existing perl script into a stand alone windows executable.
> >>>
> >>> Both the Activestate licence and the Perl Artistic licence allow for embedding a script and perl interpreter together and distributing the result.
> >>>
> >>> The current perl script(s) used for the R package build package could easily be converted to a 'stand alone' windows executable and be distributed with Rtools for those who do not want to install Perl themselves.
> >>>
> >>> The only drawback is that even a "Hello World" script will result in over a meg sized executable (due to the perl interpreter being included).
> >> I took a quick look at the PAR page on CPAN, and it seems possible to
> >> build a DLL that incorporates the interpreter, and then each individual
> >> script .exe could be much smaller.  I'll see if I can get that to work;
> >> it would be really nice to be able to drop the Perl requirement.  If we
> >> could do that, I'd include the command line tools plus the compiled
> >> scripts with the basic R distribution, so you could easily build simple
> >> packages.  The Rtools.exe installer would then just need to install the
> >> MinGW compilers for packages containing compiled code, and a few extras
> >> needed for building R.
> >>
> >> I don't really know Perl, so I might be asking for advice if I get stuck.
> >>
> >> Duncan Murdoch
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>>
> >>> From: r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch on behalf of Gabor Grothendieck
> >>> Sent: Fri 5/4/2007 11:55 AM
> >>> To: Doran, Harold
> >>> Cc: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch; Duncan Murdoch
> >>> Subject: Re: [R] [SPAM] - Re: R package development in windows - BayesianFilter detected spam
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Just googling I found this:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=186402
> >>>
> >>> On 5/4/07, Doran, Harold <HDoran at air.org> wrote:
> >>>>> The best, of course, would be to get rid of Perl altogether.
> >>>> In Python, it is possible to make standalone executables. Is it possible
> >>>> to also do this in Perl, then one could eliminate a perl install. Or, is
> >>>> it possible to use Python to accomplish what perl is currently doing? I
> >>>> may be getting in over my head here since I really don't know what perl
> >>>> is doing under the hood.
> >>>>
> >>>> Harold
> >>>>
> >>> ______________________________________________
> >>> R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
> >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> >>> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> >>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>