Ok..
For the moment, I'm leaving r-pdl patches in pdl. R doesn't work for me,
(this segfaults: perl -le 'use PDL::R; pnorm(.1,0.0,1.0);'). make test
doesn't complain, but that's probably because the debian package doesn't
include any tests for R. I'm seriously concerned about this.
More genera
On Fri, Oct 08, 1999 at 01:23:22PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> That said, yes, I would keep them open until potato is released.
I thought protocol was to close bugs fixed in the latest upload,
even though they are not fixed in stable? I suspect the BTS
would have many more entries if we co
*Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 1999 at 05:07:22PM -0700, John Lapeyre wrote:
> > This is OK. Except that Raul Miller took pdl already. r-pdl is
> > somewhat obsolete. I currently have it patched into the pdl source.
> > The pdl people will take it upstream, but I haven't had time to c
Le Sun, Oct 10, 1999 at 09:46:05PM -0400, Raul Miller écrivait:
> I wrote:
> > By the way, I don't suppose anyone knows why I'd be getting /lib
> > defined in rpath on some perl .so files? [Looking at perl this should
> > only be happening if I was running IRIX.]
>
> Or solaris. But I'm running n
I wrote:
> By the way, I don't suppose anyone knows why I'd be getting /lib
> defined in rpath on some perl .so files? [Looking at perl this should
> only be happening if I was running IRIX.]
Or solaris. But I'm running neither, so I Just Don't Get It.
Any insight would be appreciated.
Much tha
On Sun, Oct 10, 1999 at 05:07:22PM -0700, John Lapeyre wrote:
> This is OK. Except that Raul Miller took pdl already. r-pdl is
> somewhat obsolete. I currently have it patched into the pdl source.
> The pdl people will take it upstream, but I haven't had time to correct
> a couple of things.
*Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "John" == John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [packages to adopt]
>
> I'll happily take the perl packages, which it think are the follwoing.
>
> r-pdl
> pdl
> pgperl
> freewrl
> libplot-perl
This is OK. Except tha
7 matches
Mail list logo