> | Is there a way to overcome this problem? Precompiled versions of R can be > installed on various system configurations, so I guess that there should be a > way to compile it in a version-agnostic manner. > > Yes, for example by > > -- using a Docker container which is portable across OSs (!!) and versions
Docker R containers are north of 250 MB. I have checked experimentally that you can trim R down to 16 MB (!) and you'll still be able to execute it (though with warnings). That *is* quite a difference, especially when deploying small applications. > -- relying on package management which is what every Linux distro does > > (...) > > PS For the latter point, our .deb based R package currently shows this: > > (...) > > Depends: zip, unzip, libpaper-utils, xdg-utils, libblas3 | libblas.so.3, > libbz2-1.0, libc6 (>= 2.23), libcairo2 (>= 1.6.0), libcurl3 (>= 7.28.0), > libglib2.0-0 (>= 2.12.0), libgomp1 (>= 4.9), libjpeg8 (>= 8c), liblapack3 | > liblapack.so.3, liblzma5 (>= 5.1.1alpha+20120614), libpango-1.0-0 (>= > 1.14.0), libpangocairo-1.0-0 (>= 1.14.0), libpcre3, libpng12-0 (>= 1.2.13-4), > libreadline6 (>= 6.0), libtcl8.6 (>= 8.6.0), libtiff5 (>= 4.0.3), libtk8.6 > (>= 8.6.0), libx11-6, libxt6, zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.4), ucf (>= 3.0), > ca-certificates Sure, package dependencies would be great as well - at least you'd be sure that users of, say, Debian-based distros will be able to run this portable R, as long as they've installed the required libraries. But notice that in your example package versions equal *or greater* than listed are required - so if someone has upgraded their system, they still will be able to run that R. With a version built from source you need *exactly* the same version as on the machine where R was compiled. Hence my question: how come the precompiled distribution of R has "less strict" library requirements than manually compiled versions? Best, Pawel ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
