I am writing this from Dortmund, at the useR! 2008 conference
I will have a talk tomorrow about the interaction between R and Fedora. It is
a 15 minutes session so there is not much time to expand. I will present
Fedora and it interacts with R. There are several issues that are common to
the relation between Fedora and languages like perl, python, latex or R.
I will also take the opportunity to hear feedback from several types of users
regarding the state of R in Fedora. If there is anything relevant I will
report back to this list.
I have asked pingou (I hope I can use this) to write to the list with the new
releases of his package as it would be nice that package automatically in
Fedora using yum.
PS: In case you are wondering why I took so long to send this message to the
list, believe that it is a long story that involves time shortage. :-)
On Thursday 23 October 2008 19:22:07 James Antill wrote:
> Well it kinda fits the "people expect foo-core + additions" _assuming_
> CRAN is a requirement, but really why don't we just package more of the
> R modules so CRAN usage isn't a requirement?
There are more than 1500 modules (the have been growing at an exponential rate
in the last years). So while we would like to see more R packages in Fedora in
are not even near to have a reasonable subset of R packaged.
So for the moment CRAN is really a requirement to use R in Fedora.
> James Antill <james(a)fedoraproject.org>
I am currently updating the libraries from bioconductor to the version
2.3 of bioconductor made for R 2.8.0.
I am adding to all these package a global variable Rversion which is
then used in the Requires and BuilRequires sections.
This means that those packages will not be available for previous
version of R.
I am planning to generalize this and to add this in R2spec.
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 16:34 +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Better solutions:
> * add it to comps.xml
> * move 'R' to R-core, and add 'R' which depends on 'R-core' +
> > * The size of the R-devel is tiny, about 440K installed.
> You miss its dependencies:
These are very good points, thanks Enrico. What would people think about
doing the suggested R/R-core/R-devel split instead? Users would still be
able to get everything with yum install R, it would meet the guidelines,
and minimal installs with R can simply have R-core.
This email serves as an announcement that I plan to swallow up R-devel
into the base R package. Why?
* It is causing no end of user complaints. The typical R user expects to
be able to do a "CPAN" (really, I should say "CRAN") style package
install through the R interface:
This doesn't work unless you have R-devel installed. The average R user
is a professor or a student, and neither of them are going to
necessarily possess the necessary Linux/Fedora knowledge to be able to
understand why this doesn't work like the R documentation says it
* The size of the R-devel is tiny, about 440K installed. It will not
bloat the main package to absorb the .h files and a .pc file into the
main package. There are no libraries in the R-devel package.
* The primary users of R-devel are R addon packages. They can continue
to BuildRequires: R-devel safely (hooray for Provides/Requires).
* libRmath (the R shared library) will still be a separate package.
libRmath-devel will still be a separate package. As far as I know,
nothing in Fedora uses libRmath, nor is libRmath-devel necessary for
building R addons.
Now, I recognize that this is a violation of the Fedora Packaging
Guidelines, and I've given a lot of thought to this over the last few
days, and technically, this is a reversal of my earlier stance (which is
to stick to the guidelines). However, I think this is a key
functionality that Fedora R users expect to just work, and I want to try
to make sure that they get the best R experience out of the box that
As Martyn Plummer pointed out:
There are currently 1533 packages/bundles on CRAN, not counting the
recommended packages that are already distributed with R. Of these
packages, 420 require to the R headers. Fedora only supplies RPMs for
I'm not entirely sure if I need FESCo or FPC approval to take this
action, if so, this is my notice of requesting it. ;)
I'm also looking for feedback and comments, of course.
~spot (Fedora R maintainer)
As previously I am announcing here the new release of R2spec, the
Here is the changelog for this version:
# Version 2.5.1 -- 07th Oct 2008
# -Features added
# * Add the summary from Title in the DESCRIPTION file
# * Add the possibility to have a ~/.R2spec.conf which overrides the
# -Bugs correction
# * Correct a typo SOURCES != SOURCE
# * Copy from ./ to ~/rpmbuild and not ../ Bug #1
# * Change "summary should be not be longer than that" to "summary
should be not be longer than this"
# * Create the function finishName in the spec class to avoid
redundancy in the code
# * Move the check of the specfile to Package.py to avoid redundancy
in the code
# * Change some layout in the output
Feed back, bugs and suggestions welcome here or in :
Have a nice day,