Status Rmetrics for R 2.6.0

[Martin Maechler]

>>>>> "DE" == Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org>
>>>>>     on Mon, 8 Oct 2007 08:45:38 -0500 writes:

    DE> Hi Diethelm,

    DE> On 8 October 2007 at 15:01, Diethelm Wuertz wrote:
    DE> | Dear Rmetrics-Core List Memebers,
    DE> | 
    DE> | Dear Kurt, Dirk,
    DE> | 
    DE> | 
    DE> | Thanks for all the comments I got so far for the new Rmetrics distribution.
    DE> | 
    DE> | The Current Status is the following
    DE> | 
    DE> | 1.
    DE> | Now I have resubmitted all packages under Version
    DE> | Number Rmetrics 260.72. I hope that now everything will be fine:

    DE> Why all?  That makes a lot of manual work for Kurt, and to a lesser degree
    DE> for me.

    DE> | You can have a look on all package reports including
    DE> | the major log,  install, and unit test files:
    DE> | 
    DE> | http://www.itp.phys.ethz.ch/econophysics/R/RmetricsPackages/R-2.6.0/
    DE> | 
    DE> | 2.
    DE> | Rdonlp is removed from package fPortfolio, so all packages
    DE> | can also become part of Debian.

    DE> Not so fast:

    DE> i)  You didn't fix the dependence on akima. Or at least you didn't tell us.

Apropos :  I don't quite understand why akima has a licence issue
just because of a TOMS algorithm,
when R itself uses TOMS algorithms in quite a few places.
Is it just because R does so more covertly?

    DE> ii) I submitted RUnit, robustbase, and mnormt to Debian. The last is really
    DE> silly as already have the 'other multivaritate normal/t' (named mvtnorm) 
    DE> but whatever....  In any event, mnormt needs to be included so that I 
    DE> can then build sn, and then we still need to wait for sn to be included.

    DE> So as I asked before: next we hardwire new Depends, and early heads-up 
    DE> would help.

I don't understand     "next we hardwire new Depends" 

Do you mean --- as I very much agree ---  that 
DESCRIPTION 'Depends:' entries should not too lightly be
added, but rather discussed on Rmetrics-core at ... ?

Yes, indeed!
Package structures should not be changed any more without
a proposal that is discussed *before* things happens.

Regards,
Martin