[Rcpp-devel] Rcpp Makevars COPYING policy?

Jonathan Olmsted jpolmsted at gmail.com
Wed Oct 16 04:34:32 CEST 2013

Finally, some closure...

Romain, as you sensed, I did not *really* need linking. Of course, I did
not realize that earlier. You were completely right to point in the
direction of registering functions. And, while I wish this was some new
feature, it's been in R for a *long* time. How the answer could be
mentioned in R-exts with me completely missing it I have no idea (but I'm
not surprised, I guess).

It took me longer than I'm willing to reveal to get the functions
registered in the "host package" (if you will). It then took me another
similarly long block of time to figure out function pointers. And, it then
took me a third one of these blocks to figure out how "LinkingTo" factored
in (prior to this, I'd been calling "R_GetCCallable" on the "client
package" side. However, I finally got that squared away after working
through the Rcpp11 repo. As you well know, this approach is impressively
clean from the perspective of the "client package". Just include a header
and you are done.

Darren, I thought I'd just ask about permission first before making someone
think hard about an already solved problem. But, that's a clever idea all
the same.

One sticking point for me was inferring the general from that the examples
(e.g., Rcpp11, Matrix) which used slightly different approaches and, of
course, had other moving parts.

Dirk, If I just looked in the right spot of xts, I'd have seen the header
trick on the "host package" spelled out in plain English. *sigh*

In general, I'm quite curious how widely used this is (just a matter of a
script over the DL-ed ReverseDepends of Rcpp packages) . It'd be a shame
for devs not to use it more and expose their functionality.

Many thanks for everyone's help!


J.P. Olmsted
j.p.olmsted at gmail.com

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Darren Cook <darren at dcook.org> wrote:

> > Intellectual property rights confuse the heck out of me so I wanted to
> ask
> > explicitly before stepping on any toes. Rcpp is GPL-2. However, the
> > Makevars in the ./src/ directory don't necessarily carry the same license
> > header as your Cpp source. What are your intentions for derivative use of
> > the Makevars files you guys use in Rcpp? Specifically, I would like to
> use
> > your strategy in an R package to build a static lib for subsequent
> linking
> > against by other R packages.
> You could also describe your actual need on StackOverflow; IIRC the
> terms and conditions explicitly say all code posted there can be treated
> as public domain.
> If someone gives you the same approach then perhaps there is only one
> way to do it; if someone gives you a different way perhaps that will be
> just as good.
> Darren
> P.S. This idea falls flat if someone just says take a look at the Rcpp
> Makevars file ;-)
> _______________________________________________
> Rcpp-devel mailing list
> Rcpp-devel at lists.r-forge.r-project.org
> https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/pipermail/rcpp-devel/attachments/20131015/fa80c797/attachment.html>

More information about the Rcpp-devel mailing list