Re: [Rd] Problems with install.packages when Ncpus > 1

2012-10-06 Thread Winston Chang
>> In the code for install.packages, I see that if Ncpus>1, it passes the
>> Ncpus to make, as in 'make -k -j 32'. Is it possible that these
>> packages are failing because of this option to make?
>
>
> It is perfectly correct option: please do your homework before posting as the 
> posting guide asked of you.



The question isn't about whether these are valid make options. I
realize that '-j ' is a valid option for make, just like Ncpus is a
valid option for install.packages. The question is whether that option
is unexpectedly resulting in failed compiles for some packages.


>>
>> Has anyone else run into this issue before?
>
>
> Yes.  It is due to missing dependencies between packages.   I find this works 
> well on CRAN *provided* that the BioC repositories are also selected so that 
> dependencies can be traced via BioC dependencies. However, BioC does have a 
> fair few missing dependencies in its packages (run R CMD check over BioC to 
> see them).
>
> Take a look at the logs of the failed packages.  One I see frequently is that 
> ddgraph fails because it depends indirectly on RBGL which takes a long time 
> to install and is still being done.



Thanks, I'll take a closer look at these those cross dependencies.

-Winston

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel


Re: [Rd] Problems with install.packages when Ncpus > 1

2012-10-06 Thread Uwe Ligges



On 06.10.2012 18:02, Winston Chang wrote:

In the code for install.packages, I see that if Ncpus>1, it passes the
Ncpus to make, as in 'make -k -j 32'. Is it possible that these
packages are failing because of this option to make?



It is perfectly correct option: please do your homework before posting as the 
posting guide asked of you.




The question isn't about whether these are valid make options. I
realize that '-j ' is a valid option for make, just like Ncpus is a
valid option for install.packages. The question is whether that option
is unexpectedly resulting in failed compiles for some packages.


I think Brian answered this already:
Not unexpectedly. It fails in case when a package installation requires 
another package and that is installed at the same time or not yet 
installed. Such things happen when install time dependencies are not 
correctly declared. R CMD check finds (at least most of) such 
declaration errors  nowadays.


Uwe Ligges







Has anyone else run into this issue before?



Yes.  It is due to missing dependencies between packages.   I find this works 
well on CRAN *provided* that the BioC repositories are also selected so that 
dependencies can be traced via BioC dependencies. However, BioC does have a 
fair few missing dependencies in its packages (run R CMD check over BioC to see 
them).

Take a look at the logs of the failed packages.  One I see frequently is that 
ddgraph fails because it depends indirectly on RBGL which takes a long time to 
install and is still being done.




Thanks, I'll take a closer look at these those cross dependencies.

-Winston

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel



__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel