From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OVrgN-0001yD-Ka for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Jul 2010 19:50:25 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E9BFE0C48; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 19:50:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.webfaction.com (mail6.webfaction.com [74.55.86.74]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FEB3E0C48; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 19:50:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f53.google.com (mail-fx0-f53.google.com [209.85.161.53]) by smtp.webfaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E87323FFF; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 14:50:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: by fxm19 with SMTP id 19so4438542fxm.40 for ; Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.34.19 with SMTP id j19mr2623406ebd.63.1278359410769; Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.4.197 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 21:50:10 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: [gentoo-science] G-CRAN weekly report #6 From: Auke Booij To: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 7383e560-2f07-4d02-bec4-c1fc1abde440 X-Archives-Hash: 33195056a534dd24b9a91aba264a0705 Last week I promised: "Soon to come is proper parsing of the License field, proper translation of dependencies (the current code assumes a dependency on foo means a dependency on dev-R/foo) and installing /usr/share/doc files correctly." Well, I have very good news. The License field gets parsed almost properly, documentation files get installed almost correctly, and dependencies are almost translated properly. No, it's not perfect yet. If the license is really a reference to a LICENSE file (instead of just the name of the license), it does not get installed, nor displayed correctly. If the documentation isn't just HTML documentation, it doesn't get installed. If a dependency is really already part of the default R install, it's not discarded and the package will depend on a nonexistent package, and this is something I'd like to hear your thoughts on (see below). Unfortunately, g-common isn't really getting anywhere yet. I hope some more emailing will get us started, but else I'll be developing my own system. If I will, then a big advantage would be that I can simply implement it the way I'd like to, instead of having to convince the other two GSoC devs first ;-) Alright, discarding dependencies. Some (a lot of) CRAN-style packages depend on libraries which already get installed as part of the R program. These dependencies should, for our purposes anyway, simply be discarded, but to do this I do need to know what libraries are part of the default R install, which means listing R's files, and I'd like you guys to tell me how to do this. As far as I can see, the following are the options and I'd like to hear which you would prefer: -use "qlist" or "equery files" -read it from the vdb -hardcode the list of builtin R libraries -read it from the filesystem directly (note: this would mean that some correct dependencies are discarded as well, but it is a very lightweight and independent solution) Pros, cons? Opinions wanted! Up for next week is, first of all, finishing the dependency stuff, and if I'm lucky some initial development on g-common. The week after that I will still be working on g-common, and perhaps do some initial QA.