Your message dated Mon, 23 May 2005 19:24:37 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#310198: rpy: FTBFS: Does not have headers for R 2.1.0
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 22 May 2005 12:09:32 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun May 22 05:09:32 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from adicia.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.56]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DZpGt-0006jP-00; Sun, 22 May 2005 05:09:32 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by adicia.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with SMTP id F25AF44EFE
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 22 May 2005 14:09:30 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from Q.roeckx.be (dD5775FD9.access.telenet.be [213.119.95.217])
by adicia.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id E296544ED0
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 22 May 2005 14:09:30 +0200 (MEST)
Received: by Q.roeckx.be (Postfix, from userid 501)
id CD62026136; Sun, 22 May 2005 14:09:30 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 14:09:30 +0200
From: Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: rpy: FTBFS: Does not have headers for R 2.1.0
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: rpy
Version: 0.4.1-2
Severity: serious
Tags: sarge
Hi,
This package is failing to build in sarge but it seems to have
been fixed in sid. (-3 or -4 version?)
It's failing with the following error:
CFLAGS="-O2 -Wall" python2.2 setup.py build
Building for R version 2.1.0 ...
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "setup.py", line 136, in ?
RSRC = get_R_SRC()
File "setup.py", line 57, in get_R_SRC
raise DistutilsExecError( \
distutils.errors.DistutilsExecError:
The path
/root/build/rpy-0.4.1/R-2.1.0
which should contain header files for R version 2.1.0
does not exist!
Please see the rpy README file for instructions.
make: *** [build-stamp] Error 1
Kurt
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 310198-done) by bugs.debian.org; 24 May 2005 00:25:12 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon May 23 17:25:12 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from rwcrmhc14.comcast.net [216.148.227.89]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DaNEO-0002Vk-00; Mon, 23 May 2005 17:25:12 -0700
Received: from basebud.nulle.part
(c-67-174-11-185.hsd1.il.comcast.net[67.174.11.185])
by comcast.net (rwcrmhc14) with ESMTP
id <2005052400244101400997rme>; Tue, 24 May 2005 00:24:42 +0000
Received: from edd by basebud.nulle.part with local (Exim 4.50)
id 1DaNDp-0003bE-DE; Mon, 23 May 2005 19:24:37 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:24:37 -0500
To: Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#310198: rpy: FTBFS: Does not have headers for R 2.1.0
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under 21.4 (patch 17) "Jumbo Shrimp" XEmacs Lucid
From: Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Don,
On 23 May 2005 at 15:24, Don Armstrong wrote:
| 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.]
[ I respect your opinions, as you are generally very clueful, and diligent,
about Debian. I may sound harsh here with respect to R, but a few things are
simply different. ]
The R API has been in changing, yet rpy is /much/ older than the new
interfaces. Part of this is a historical happenstance, as Greg said in his
email this is about to get cleaned up. So no need to be obsessed here.
| > 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.
I trust Greg on this. He is upstream maintainer / author, and he gets bugged
from all the users on a variety of OSs, many less structured than Debian,
about how to build rpy.
| > 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.
No, after mulling this over all day, I have decided to close it.
I do not think that changing the set of distributed header files is a good
idea.
| PS: Why, exactly, does the r-base-core package contain the header
| files?
r-base-core is what "R" is on all other systems. I simply insisted on
splitting some (huge) -doc packages out, and the seven or eight core r-cran-*
packages off it. This means, among other things, that r-base-core has all
headers needed to build via R's install.packages() mechanism.
r-base-dev is NOT a standard Debian packages, it is more of a virtual package
to ensure people also install a Fortran compiler, readline/curses headers etc
pp.
Dirk
--
Statistics: The (futile) attempt to offer certainty about uncertainty.
-- Roger Koenker, 'Dictionary of Received Ideas of Statistics'
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
