[Rcpp-devel] Ancient Rcpp for OS X on CRAN [Was: Building/linking trouble with cxxfunction()]

[Simon Urbanek]

On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:51 PM, <Ken.Williams at thomsonreuters.com> <Ken.Williams at thomsonreuters.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 2/22/11 4:33 PM, "Simon Urbanek" <simon.urbanek at r-project.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:29 PM, <Ken.Williams at thomsonreuters.com>
>> <Ken.Williams at thomsonreuters.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/22/11 4:25 PM, "Simon Urbanek" <simon.urbanek at r-project.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anyway---I will point our OS X user to source installs.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Well, I don't think that helps in any way - the test will still fail
>>>> for
>>>> all 10.5 users. Why don't you just fix the test? It's up to you, but
>>>> removing Rcpp from CRAN won't help anyone (well, almost ;)).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Actually it helps a great deal, it means that 10.6 users can install
>>> something.
>>> 
>> 
>> Can you explain? You can always install from sources (provided you have
>> all the tools etc.) - regardless whether there is a binary or not...
> 
> That's true - but for most OS X users, myself included until just a couple
> hours ago, it looks like (when using the R.app GUI install tools) the
> oldest successfully-built binary is the "latest available version", unless
> someone like Dirk points us to the source install and says it should work
> fine.  So it certainly helped me because I didn't know what I was missing.
> 

Ok, I'll take it down, but note that this will have a snowball effect since it implies that all depending packages will fail as well. I can change the policy such that check failures result in the removal of the old binary - from what you said it may be useful since the users will be more likely to bug the maintainers for a fix. The drawback is that in the meantime there is no binary. Personally, either is fine with me.


>>> 
>>> What's this about removing Rcpp from CRAN though?  Just a joke I assume?
>>> 
>> 
>> No, why?
> 
> Because it's a useful package, of course.  And CRAN is where someone
> should go to find useful R packages.
> 

Well, if that was true, CRAN would have a much fewer packages ;).

Cheers,
Simon