Roel Janssen <r...@gnu.org> writes: >> Okay. I’ll make the change before pushing. > > If you want I can do the modifications as well and push. Saves you some > valuable time :)
Yes, that would be best. I forgot that you already have push access! :) >> I didn’t try to swap out the sources. In my opinion this should be >> treated as a fork. It’s a subset of Boost with R-specific adaptations. >> Other R packages may depend on this particular “flavour” and might not >> work well otherwise. >> >> If someone made the effort to change this, it would need to be checked >> each time we updated our Boost package. I don’t think we have the >> infrastructure to keep track of these things, so I’d rather err on the >> side of keeping things as upstream has them. > > Right. I didn't compare the original boost sources with the one > provided with the RBGL package, so I didn't know there were differences > in code. I should state that I also don’t *know* if there are differences. But I know that “r-bh”, for example, does something similar and we decided not to make it reuse the upstream Boost sources for similar reasons. > I agree to keep the "forked" Boost code instead of using the upstream > Boost code for additional reasons: > > 1. It makes the package recipe much simpler. > 2. It keeps the package as the maintainer of RBGL meant to distribute > it. The compile-time overhead is manageable (building the package on my > machine takes less than ten minutes). > > I will take care of upstreaming this package and the other six I proposed. Okay. Please take a quick look at my comments before pushing. ~~ Ricardo
