On 6 July 2010 at 12:03, Douglas Bates wrote: | On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <[email protected]> wrote: | > | > On 6 July 2010 at 11:11, Douglas Bates wrote: | > | The lme4a package currently depends on Rcpp_0.8.3 and uses some | > | "sugar" constructions - but only in a few places and I could replace | > | those with explicit loops or calls to std::transform fairly easily. | > | | > | I see that Rcpp_0.8.3 is available on CRAN as the source code package | > | but the Windows and OS X binaries are still at 0.8.2 | > | | > | Furthermore the nightly R-forge builds of lme4a are failing on Windows | > | and OS X when they hit a sugar construction. | > | | > | Would I be well-advised to back out the use of Rcpp sugar if I want to | > | have a package available for the tutorial preceding useR!2010? It is | > | not a big deal to do that but still it is something I would prefer to | > | avoid if Windows and Mac OS X builds of 0.8.3 are just around the | > | corner. | > | > That's a somewhat complicated issue right now, but hopefully not for long. | > | > "Sugar" started really only good post-0.8.2. And with the Rmetrics meeting | > coming up, and a larger than usual set of changes, we released 0.8.3 right | > before that meeting. At the time Rcpp passed on all systems we could test on. | > We do nto release when we know of failures. [ Hint: If only we already had | > "bin-builder" ... ]. | > | > But once released, it turned out that Solaris didn't build, and that OS X | > failed with ppc (we couldn't test that, as we have x86 only). And worst of | > all, Uwe is getting tired of the odd and still unexplained build issues on | > 'doze and has pushed us to the back of the bus. So that means we lack Win, | > OS X, Solaris. Mind you even though it builds almost everywhere, but because | > we have an obsessively large number of unit tests, something sometimes breaks | > somewhere. I think I just fixed something for Windoze related to Dates and a | > Windows braindeadness. And we're working on bulk compiles for the tests so | > that we no longer run up against Uwe's time limit. | > | > Now, you seem to define "ready" as "being used on R-Forge" and that depends | > on the binaries -- which aren't there for the reasons discussed above. | | > We may get 0.8.4 out in a bit. We probably want that befoer useR! ourselves. | > But whether that migrates through to give you your packages -- dunno. | | > At the end of the day, maybe you just have to dive in and build lme4a and | > Rcpp locally. I presume you only really need two types of binaries, win32 and | > OS X/x86. Can you just do those and have people install off a web page / ftp | > site? | | That is a reasonable suggestion if i were willing to mess around with | Windows long enough to install the tools for building packages, etc. | However, my patience for working on Windows runs out after about 5 | minutes and I think it will be easier on computers and people near me | if I just create a version of lme4a that will compile against | Rcpp_0.8.2.
I have a working Windows setup at work (for various definitions of working). If we define a snapshot, I could wrap up a package for you. | You see I work on Ubuntu or Debian systems all the time and there is | this marvelous guy named Dirk who makes it so simple to install the | packages and the build environment etc. there that i am rather | spoiled. :-) :-) I work in that environment too, most of the time. -- Regards, Dirk _______________________________________________ Rcpp-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
