On 17 May 2025 at 10:13, Iñaki Ucar wrote: | El sáb., 17 may. 2025 4:03, Hervé Pagès <hpages.on.git...@gmail.com> | escribió: | | > FWIW NeedsCompilation is a misnomer. IIRC when I was discussing this | > feature with R core members many years ago, it doesn't only flag | > packages that require compilation (and thus contain arch-specific binary | > files), but it is more generally intended to flag packages that the user | > wouldn't be able to install **from source** on a pristine Windows or Mac | > system because the installation process depends on tools that are not | > necessarily present on such systems. | > | > For example I think I remember seeing at the time some packages that | > were using 'make' for non-compilation related business. These packages | > still needed to be flagged with 'NeedsCompilation: yes' in order to | > recognize them as packages for which "binaries" needed to be made for | > the purpose distributing them. | > | | Then maybe such thing shouldn't be allowed?
Seconded. Seems like a case for 'SystemRequirements: make' at best -- but then make is a given (but GNU make isn't). Dirk -- dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
