[Rd] MacOS specific framework install problem
Dear r-devel, Using the latest R-devel from SVN, when doing a make install, even from a build directory, there is a recursive copy that attempts to copy the .svn file to the framework include directory. The problem is due to the fact that there is a reference to $srcdir in Makefile.in that should probably be $top_builddir. The following patch (also attached) fixes this: Index: Makefile.in === --- Makefile.in (revision 35301) +++ Makefile.in (working copy) @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ ln -f -s -n Versions/Current/Resources Resources) @(cd "$(R_FRAMEWORK_DIR)/Resources/lib" && \ install_name_tool -id "$(R_FRAMEWORK_DIR)/Versions/$ (VERSION)/Resources/lib/libR.dylib" ../lib/libR.dylib) - @(cp -R $(srcdir)/src/include $(R_FRAMEWORK_DIR)/Versions/ Current/PrivateHeaders) + @(cp -R $(top_builddir)/src/include $(R_FRAMEWORK_DIR)/ Versions/Current/PrivateHeaders) @(install_name_tool -change libR.dylib "$(R_FRAMEWORK_DIR)/ Versions/$(VERSION)/Resources/lib/libR.dylib" \ $(R_FRAMEWORK_DIR)/Resources/bin/exec/R) @(find "$(R_FRAMEWORK_DIR)/Resources/" -name '*.so' -exec install_name_tool \ I would be pleased if someone who understands the build system better than idea would review this and check it in if it's the right thing to do. Thanks, Cyrus __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
[Rd] PATCH to Makefile.in w/ Makeconf LIBR variable update to allow builds within R to find Framework
Dear r-devel,
When R has been installed in a non-standard location (or any location
where Apple's version of gcc isn't going to, by default, look for
frameworks specified with the -framework arg), builds of R packages
fail because the linker can't find the framework. The following patch
to Makefile.in enables Makefile to patch Makeconf appropriately to
drop in the -F argument to the appropriate place.
Thanks for considering this,
Cyrus
Index: Makefile.in
===
--- Makefile.in (revision 35301)
+++ Makefile.in (working copy)
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@
$(INSTALL_DATA) $${f} "$(rhome)"; \
done
@WANT_R_FRAMEWORK_TRUE@$(MAKE) install-R-framework
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@@(sed 's/^LIBR =.*/LIBR = -
framework R/' \
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@@(sed 's|^LIBR =.*|LIBR = -F$
(R_FRAMEWORK_DIR)/.. -framework R|' \
@WANT_R_FRAMEWORK_TRUE@ $(top_builddir)/etc/Makeconf
> "$(rhome)/etc/Makeconf")
@WANT_R_FRAMEWORK_TRUE@@(sed 's/Versions\/$(VERSION)\/
Resources/Resources/' \
@WANT_R_FRAMEWORK_TRUE@ $(R_FRAMEWORK_DIR)/Resources/
bin/R > \
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
[Rd] minor build problem
I'm trying to build from the latest SVN sources on Mac OS X 10.4.3 and I seem to be having a problem making the documentation. When I do make install, i get the following: ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):~/src/R/r-devel/build-f95$ make install make[1]: Nothing to be done for `front-matter'. SVN-REVISION is unchanged make[1]: Nothing to be done for `install'. make[1]: Nothing to be done for `install'. installing doc ... /sw/bin/install: cannot stat `R.1': No such file or directory make[1]: *** [install-man] Error 1 make: *** [install] Error 1 which is due to the fact that R.1 doesn't exist. When I try to make R. 1 by going into docs and doing make svnonly, I get: ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):~/src/R/r-devel/build-f95/doc$ make svnonly make[1]: `R.fe' is up to date. help2man: can't get `--version' info from ../src/scripts/R.fe When I try to run help2man manually I get: ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):~/src/R/r-devel/build-f95/doc$ perl ../../R/tools/ help2man.pl --include=../../R/doc/R.aux --no-info --output=R.1 -- name="a language for data analysis and graphics" ../src/scripts/R.fe help2man: can't get `--version' info from ../src/scripts/R.fe If I try to get the version info from ../src/scripts/R.fe directly, I get: ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):~/src/R/r-devel/build-f95/doc$ ../src/scripts/R.fe -- version Version 2.3.0 Under development (unstable) (2006-01-07 r37011) Copyright (C) 2006 R Development Core Team R is free software and comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. You are welcome to redistribute it under the terms of the GNU General Public License. For more information about these matters, see http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. So that seems to work. There must be some problem parsing this output. Does have an idea why help2man is failing here? Thanks, Cyrus __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
[Rd] SVN troubles
Dear r-devel, Sorry to trouble the list with this, but I've been beating my head against the wall trying to figure out what's wrong. When I try to connect to the R SVN server, I get the following message: ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):~/src/R$ svn co https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk r-devel svn: PROPFIND request failed on '/R/trunk' svn: PROPFIND of '/R/trunk': SSL negotiation failed: SSL error: bad signature (https://svn.r-project.org) on other boxes, things are fine. I've tried two different versions of svn on this box, 1.2.3 and 1.3.0, to no avail. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps SSL is broken here, but I can't seem to figure out how to get any better diagnostics for this. Thanks, Cyrus __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] SVN troubles
Just thought y'all might like to know that the cause of my trouble was that the openssl libraries currently in fink (for MacOS X on Intel) seem to be broken. Using the system supplied openssl libraries to build svn seems to fix the problem. Thanks and sorry for the noise. Cyrus On Mar 7, 2006, at 3:46 PM, Seth Falcon wrote: > Cyrus Harmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Dear r-devel, >> >> Sorry to trouble the list with this, but I've been beating my head >> against the wall trying to figure out what's wrong. When I try to >> connect to the R SVN server, I get the following message: >> >> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):~/src/R$ svn co https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk r- >> devel >> svn: PROPFIND request failed on '/R/trunk' >> svn: PROPFIND of '/R/trunk': SSL negotiation failed: SSL error: bad >> signature (https://svn.r-project.org) > > You could try going to that URL with a web browser on that system. > You could also see what is inside your ~/.subversion directory on that > system. Perhaps a cached cert is invalid and preventing ssl auth. > > + seth > > __ > 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
Re: [Rd] minor build problem
Perhaps I'm doing something wrong here, but I'm still seeing the: help2man: can't get `--version' info from ../bin/R error message here. and the make; make; make install workaround doesn't seem to be working for me. I don't know if this is due to incompatible versions of perl, but I've tried 5.8.6 and 5.8.8 to no avail. This is on MacOS X 10.4.6/PPC from the latest SVN sources (3), building in a separate directory. Thanks, Cyrus On Jan 7, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Prof Brian Ripley wrote: > We know: this is due to a change in where the version is stored > that someone did not check the consequences of. It will be fixed > shortly (I am testing a fix right now). Meanwhile, > > make; make; make install > > works. > > On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Cyrus Harmon wrote: > >> I'm trying to build from the latest SVN sources on Mac OS X 10.4.3 >> and I seem to be having a problem making the documentation. >> >> When I do make install, i get the following: >> >> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):~/src/R/r-devel/build-f95$ make install >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `front-matter'. >> SVN-REVISION is unchanged >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `install'. >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `install'. >> installing doc ... >> /sw/bin/install: cannot stat `R.1': No such file or directory >> make[1]: *** [install-man] Error 1 >> make: *** [install] Error 1 >> >> which is due to the fact that R.1 doesn't exist. When I try to >> make R. >> 1 by going into docs and doing make svnonly, I get: >> >> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):~/src/R/r-devel/build-f95/doc$ make svnonly >> make[1]: `R.fe' is up to date. >> help2man: can't get `--version' info from ../src/scripts/R.fe >> >> >> When I try to run help2man manually I get: >> >> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):~/src/R/r-devel/build-f95/doc$ perl ../../R/tools/ >> help2man.pl --include=../../R/doc/R.aux --no-info --output=R.1 -- >> name="a language for data analysis and graphics" ../src/scripts/R.fe >> help2man: can't get `--version' info from ../src/scripts/R.fe >> >> >> If I try to get the version info from ../src/scripts/R.fe directly, I >> get: >> >> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):~/src/R/r-devel/build-f95/doc$ ../src/scripts/R.fe -- >> version >> Version 2.3.0 Under development (unstable) (2006-01-07 r37011) >> Copyright (C) 2006 R Development Core Team >> >> R is free software and comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. >> You are welcome to redistribute it under the terms of the >> GNU General Public License. For more information about >> these matters, see http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. >> >> >> So that seems to work. There must be some problem parsing this >> output. Does have an idea why help2man is failing here? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Cyrus >> >> __ >> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> >> > > -- > Brian D. Ripley, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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] commercial software selling a R module - question about GPL license rights
But its value to you and whether or not you would pay for it is a completely separate matter from whether or not they are violating the R license by selling their R collection. I imagine a discussion of the latter is on-topic for this list, less so for the former, I'd imagine. Cyrus On Apr 19, 2006, at 11:45 AM, Philippe Grosjean wrote: > I understand that it is difficult to make the distinction between > "linking" and "derived work". Whatever the conclusion, I always feel a > little bit abused when someone wants to "sell" me R somehow (here, you > have to pay 3500$/year to use R inside of Pipeline Pilot). I would > accept to pay this money if I was in front of R experts that sell me > their expertise, indeed. But this is not the case: they don't know > much > about R, and they made a really ugly and inefficient interface between > PP and R that is not worth those 3500$/year. > > Best, > > Philippe Grosjean > > Peter Dalgaard wrote: >> Philippe Grosjean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> Sorry for this email not directly related to R developement. I >>> just come >>> from a nice demonstration session from Scitegic about their Pipeline >>> Pilot (PP) software, and especially their 'R collection' which >>> brings R >>> calculations into the software >>> (http://www.scitegic.com/documents/RStats_Collection.pdf). >>> >>> I looked carefully on the way they do it: they pass data from PP >>> to R >>> using text files, they call R.exe using a R script and input - >>> output >>> files, like: >>> >>> R.exe --nosave --no-environ --no-resore-data < script.R > output.txt >>> >>> And in the script, you have: >>> >>> read.table(...) >>> >>> which imports the data just exported from PP in an CVS file by the >>> component. I don't want to discuss here the ugly and extremely >>> inefficient solution they use to call R on their data, but anyway... >>> >>> So far, so good, they respect the GPL license since R is not >>> embedded >>> into PP, and you have to download and install it separately. >>> >>> But they also provide a series of "R component" ready to use like 'R >>> ANOVA', 'R PCA', R Neural Net', etc... which are basically R scripts >>> with replaceable variables (replacement is done by PP before >>> feeding the >>> script to the R engine). For instance, you will have: >>> >>> parameter <- $(PPvariable) >>> >>> in the R script. In the PP component, you have an option to >>> specify the >>> value of 'PPvariable', let's say: PPvariable = 10, and the >>> replacement >>> done in the R script is: >>> >>> parameter <- 10 >>> >>> before to feed this script to R. So, everything appears >>> transparent to >>> the end-user who parameterizes the scripts from within the PP >>> GUI. That >>> is what they call "each component generates an R script on-the- >>> fly"... >>> (sic!) >>> >>> However, I was suprised to learn that the Pipeline Pilot R >>> Collection is >>> not GPL and is not free (in term of money, i.e., you have to pay >>> 3500$/year to use it). I am not sure, but I think they break the GPL >>> license here since they use a commercial license for, basically, a >>> collection of R scripts embedded in their 'PP components'. >>> >>> Anyone with better expertise than me could look at this, please? >> >> >> Offhand, I don't think this is a problem. >> >> We've discussed a few similar cases. Things are sometimes slightly >> murky due to the FSF's unclear (or undecided) definition of the >> relation between "linking" and "derived work". However, it was never >> the intention that GPL code could not be _used_ by non-free software. >> That point might get clearer if you substitute mySql or a similar >> database instead of R. >> >> There are some limitations though. In particular if the connection is >> so tight that R has become an integrated part of the application, >> then >> the rules for derived works may apply. >> > > __ > 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
