Re: [Fedora-r-devel-list] [R-sig-Fedora] Improving RPM packaging for R; ideas gathered from the Debian folks
"Tom \"spot\" Callaway"
<tcallawa-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA(a)public.gmane.org> writes:
I'm not personally a fan of autogenerated packages. If people
are
interested in a CRAN package, we can get it added to Fedora and
properly maintained. The number of times that RScaLAPACK has broken
has convinced me of the value of having someone responsible for
keeping these bits alive. :)
I have deep sympathy with this perspective.
There's a corrolary of it, though, that sticks in my craw, and is the
primary reason I'm trying to advance the autogenerated case. I'll
attempt to state it briefly. (hah.)
"
No CRAN package shall be available to distro X, except that some
distro maintainer first
1) become aware of it
2) care about it
3) have the time to
a) build it
b) understand it
"
I think this is your goal, right?
We have essentially an alpha-error / beta-error problem here, on the
statement H0: "this package can be built cleanly".
On the autogen side, we plan for beta error: we build some packages
that fail.
On the constant-gardener side, we plan for alpha error: we fail to
build some packages which we would predict will work.
I think that the bulk of packages will autogenerate smoothly and work.
Because of this, I make the aesthetic call that we help more people by
generating them all, and then gradually nibbling at the problem
packages.
I'm emphasizing the subjective nature of these calls to make it clear
that I'm not trying to say "I'm right", but instead the much weaker
"This is how it looks to me".
- Allen S. Rout