Re: [Rd] what is the current correct repos structure for mac osx binaries?
On 17/06/2014 21:38, Skye Bender-deMoll wrote: Please forgive another comment on this topic. But it is not on the topic ... this function is run on a single directory. The 'type' argument to tools::write_PACKAGES doesn't currently accept the 'mac.binary.mavericks' value. It seems like it should, to make it possible to pass the same 'type' argument to all of the package generation and manipulation functions? > tools::write_PACKAGES(type='mac.binary.mavericks') Error in match.arg(type) : 'arg' should be one of “source”, “mac.binary”, “win.binary” Functions 'should' do what they are documented to do: type: Type of packages: currently source ‘.tar.gz’ archives, and Mac or Windows binary (‘.tgz’ or ‘.zip’, respectively) packages are supported. Defaults to ‘"win.binary"’ on Windows and to ‘"source"’ otherwise. All Mac binary packages are .tgz. We had Universal and Leopard packages for a long time with using type = "mac.binary" here. The specializations of that type are only used where needed. It does do the job it was designed and documented to do. best, -skye -- Brian D. Ripley, rip...@stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UKFax: +44 1865 272595 __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Is it possible to make install.packages compile source code on Unix but use shipped binary on Windows?
Thank you for the replies and hints. > A 'pre-built windows binary' of what? Sorry this was not clear, src/ contains source code for a binary executable, which produces no .lib or .dll. It is all fine in a R development environment: * On Linux, the executable is compiled and copied to R_PACKAGE_DIR/binR_ARCH using a custom install.libs.R script. * Same thing on Windows, if Rtools is installed, install.packages compiles and installs both 32 and 64 bits .exe. > You can easily ship a DLL or .exe for use on Windows: just make use of > configure.win and/or Makefile.win. If you have a Makefile.win it will > override the normal procedures for directory src. I have tried using Makevars.win, but this requires make to be installed (as by Rtools). So I guess using Makefile.win would also not work, on a classic non-development geared Windows host. Would using configure.win work without Rtools? > OTOH, shipping something in exec will be installed everwhere. True, although it seems that sub-directories of exec/ are actually not installed though. Is this intentional? > Watch out for sub-architectures: 'Windows' is in fact two platforms. We > have over the years seen a lot of problem with people shipping 64-bit > Windows binaries: 32-bit Windows does not recognize those. Indeed, and I think I properly take care of this in install.libs.R. @Grabriel: the package is provided as a source package. This one is installable locally from file, although in may case users actually get it through a personal CRAN-like repository, using argument type='both'. Thank you. Bests, Renaud __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Is it possible to make install.packages compile source code on Unix but use shipped binary on Windows?
On 18/06/2014 09:11, Renaud Gaujoux wrote: Thank you for the replies and hints. A 'pre-built windows binary' of what? Sorry this was not clear, src/ contains source code for a binary executable, which produces no .lib or .dll. It is all fine in a R development environment: * On Linux, the executable is compiled and copied to R_PACKAGE_DIR/binR_ARCH using a custom install.libs.R script. * Same thing on Windows, if Rtools is installed, install.packages compiles and installs both 32 and 64 bits .exe. You can easily ship a DLL or .exe for use on Windows: just make use of configure.win and/or Makefile.win. If you have a Makefile.win it will override the normal procedures for directory src. I have tried using Makevars.win, but this requires make to be installed (as by Rtools). So I guess using Makefile.win would also not work, on a classic non-development geared Windows host. Would using configure.win work without Rtools? Maybe. Read the documentation and sources for yourself (see below). OTOH, shipping something in exec will be installed everywhere. True, although it seems that sub-directories of exec/ are actually not installed though. Is this intentional? Yes, *and documented* (including that it should not be used for Windows executables). Neither I nor R-devel is a documentation-reading service: do read http://www.r-project.org/posting-guide.html very carefully. Watch out for sub-architectures: 'Windows' is in fact two platforms. We have over the years seen a lot of problem with people shipping 64-bit Windows binaries: 32-bit Windows does not recognize those. Indeed, and I think I properly take care of this in install.libs.R. @Grabriel: the package is provided as a source package. This one is installable locally from file, although in may case users actually get it through a personal CRAN-like repository, using argument type='both'. Thank you. Bests, Renaud -- Brian D. Ripley, rip...@stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UKFax: +44 1865 272595 __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Is it possible to make install.packages compile source code on Unix but use shipped binary on Windows?
> Maybe. Read the documentation and sources for yourself (see below). Not working, at least in my hands, as it requires `sh`. > Yes, *and documented* True. I overlooked the beginning of the NB point. > (including that it should not be used for Windows executables). Yes, that's why I use the suggested procedure that uses src/install.libs.R to copy compiled .exe files into bin/. So, eventually, I guess the answer to the original question is: no, one cannot make install.packages skip compilation of a source package, only if on Windows, without having Rtools installed -- and in PATH. Renaud __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Is it possible to make install.packages compile source code on Unix but use shipped binary on Windows?
On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 16:10 +0200, Renaud Gaujoux wrote:
> > Maybe. Read the documentation and sources for yourself (see below).
>
> Not working, at least in my hands, as it requires `sh`.
>
> > Yes, *and documented*
>
> True. I overlooked the beginning of the NB point.
>
> > (including that it should not be used for Windows executables).
>
> Yes, that's why I use the suggested procedure that uses
> src/install.libs.R to copy compiled .exe files into bin/.
>
> So, eventually, I guess the answer to the original question is: no,
> one cannot make install.packages skip compilation of a source package,
> only if on Windows, without having Rtools installed -- and in PATH.
But why would you want to? I don't understand why you are making life so
hard for yourself.
It isn't hard to set up Rtools on Windows and you only need to do it
once. Then you build a binary package on your development system to
distribute to your users.
Without even considering any technical details there is a purely
strategic issue here. If a system has been set up that is robust and
widely tested, like the R packaging system, you are much better off
working with it than trying to subvert it.
Martyn
> Renaud
>
> __
> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
---
This message and its attachments are strictly confidenti...{{dropped:8}}
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
