[R-SIG-Mac] Installing packages with type="source" instead of the default binary?
Rainer M Krug
Rainer at krugs.de
Mon Sep 9 12:42:22 CEST 2013
Prof Brian Ripley <ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> On 09/09/2013 10:56, Rainer M Krug wrote:
>> I am using Snow Leopard and I can compile packages (I have all tools
>> installed) but I am asking myself:
>> Is there an advantage to using type="source" instead of the binary
>> install of the packages? For certain packages it makes sense to have
>> fine grained control to link to certain versions of C libraries
>> (e.g. rgdal), but is there a general advantage of compiling locally?
> There is an advantage if you run multiple versions of R and want to
> share a library directory. The CRAN binary versions are tied to the
> R.framework installation.
> But otherwise
> - for the majority of packages (which have no compiled code), there is
> almost no advantage in installing from source, but also very little
> loss (you need no extra tools).
> - The CRAN binaries are built for 3.0.0 I believe, and certainly not
> re-built for patch versions. For a very few packages it is
> advantageous to use the latest patch version (I am thinking of some
> issues with non-Sweave vignettes in recent history, but there have
> been other issues).
> - You might well want to use different external C/C++/Fortran
> software, and you may even need to do so or use a different compiler
> (there are packages which install with clang but not llvm-gcc and
Thanks for this detailed response.
So if my tool chain for compilation is up and running, there can be an
advantage to compile from source. So I will likely stick to that habit.
>> Or is that simply a leftover from my Linux days, that I prefer locally
>> compiled packages?
>> R-SIG-Mac mailing list
>> R-SIG-Mac at r-project.org
<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>
Rainer M. Krug
More information about the R-SIG-Mac