Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:15:23 PM UTC+2, Emmanuel Charpentier > wrote: > Le samedi 20 août 2016 19:46:45 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori a écrit : > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:44:15 PM UTC+2, Jean-Pierre > Flori wrote: > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:05:27 PM UTC+2, leif wrote: > > Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: > > While trying my hand > <https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20523 > <https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20523>> at porting > > R 3.3.1 to Sage (needs_review, by the way), I found > this in the > > current R Installation and Administration manual > > > > <https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-admin.html#Cygwin > > <https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-admin.html#Cygwin>> > : > > > >> C.8 Cygwin > >> > >> The 32-bit version has never worked well enough to > pass R’s make > > check, and residual support from > >> earlier experiments was removed in R 3.3.0. > > I wonder what the residual support was... > > >> > >> The 64-bit version is completely unsupported. > > I concur, but that was for bad reasons, or let's be fair, > one could say the lack of manpower maybe? > > > > > Maybe we should consider to have an interface to > system's R rather than > > our own version (and therefore make it an optional > package) > > +1 for making it an optional package. (It's by the way > not what I'd > call a small package, and also takes some time to build.) > > > > The Cygwin developers certainly have to say something > regarding support > as a standard package. (I don't think it would make > sense to upgrade > Sage's R version *and* keep it a standard package if it > does no longer > build on Cygwin. We could presumably still keep Rpy and > let it use the > system version of R, also on Windoze, if present and > suited.) g > > It's not my impression that The R folk really supported any > version of Cygwin recently. > I even got bashed out when proposing a simple and > non-intrusive patch for Cygwin64. > The point is that it seems hopeless to push patches upstream > which is a very bad point. > gwthat hard at all, one just needs a setup and a very little > bit of good will: > ftp://cygwin.com/pub/cygwin/x86_64/release/R/ > <ftp://cygwin.com/pub/cygwin/x86_64/release/R/> > So yes R still builds on Cygwin32/64. > > And frankly the set of patches shipped by Cygwin is really small... > > > Did you try to use the cygwin tarball as a source for Sage's R version ? > > BTW : could it be acceptable to have multiple tarballs as a source > for R on different platforms ? Or different set of patches ? > > That would be complicated. > > Another alternative : can the spkg-install script use only certain > patches (as a function of the platform he's running on) ? In that > case, a diff between the original tarball and the Cygwin-patced > tarball could be applied if and only if one is installing on cygwin. > > Very easy, I can try to do it. > > But the main point is that the Cygwyn's folk R patches only modify the > build system behavior when run on Cygwin. > If you apply the patches and build on Linux it would make no differences.
Well, then if the Cygwin folks keep maintaining it, we could simply "import" their patch(es), not (significantly) upgrading R before they do. I'd still like R being an /optional/ package though... ;-) -leif > What do you think ? I do not understand the Sage build system well > enough to understand if this is possible, much less how... I need > your advice... > > > One would need to make a diplomatic move toward R folk. > > > I doubt it : the set of Sage's R users is probably fairly small > compared to the number of R users.... > > -- > Emmanuel Charpentier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
