On Mon, 23 May 2005, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > The (upstream) R Core team is very careful not to "promise" entry > points to R that it won't be able to support. So I doubt that you > will get them to export other header files.
If that's the case, that's a slight problem, because rpy uses an unsuported entry point. [Yet another reason why distributing separate copies of headers is generally a bad idea.] > Likewise, there are often more files and functions needed which is > why Greg Warnes (rpy upstream) opted for the full-blown "all > headers" solution, This may be true, but in the tests that I ran, no other files were required. > Lastly, you ignore that this issue needs a fix beyond Debian where > your patch does nothing. As setup.py didn't appear to have trivial argument processing it wasn't worth my time to implement it in attempting to figure out the minimum delta necessary to close the original RC bug. So, guilty as charged, but that's totally ancilliary to the issue at hand. > I don't think I should deviate in the r-base-core package from > upstream, so I think I will close your wishlist bug. Just tag it wontfix and/or forward it upstream. PS: Why, exactly, does the r-base-core package contain the header files? Don Armstrong -- Dropping non-free would set us back at least, what, 300 packages? It'd take MONTHS to make up the difference, and meanwhile Debian users will be fleeing to SLACKWARE. And what about SHAREHOLDER VALUE? -- Matt Zimmerman in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
