From jamatos at fc.up.pt Tue Apr 24 16:25:34 2007 From: jamatos at fc.up.pt (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jos=E9_Matos?=) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:25:34 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-r-devel-list] R 2.5.0 Message-ID: <200704241725.34403.jamatos@fc.up.pt> Hi, the version 2.5.0 is out. Any estimate for it to arrive Fedora, I am asking because of the rebuilds that are necessary when the main package is requested to avoid breaking updates. The latest updates to my packages already take care of any possible incompatibility with this version... :-) Cheers, -- Jos? Ab?lio From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Apr 24 17:02:49 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:02:49 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-r-devel-list] R 2.5.0 In-Reply-To: <200704241725.34403.jamatos@fc.up.pt> References: <200704241725.34403.jamatos@fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <1177434169.5956.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 17:25 +0100, Jos? Matos wrote: > Hi, > the version 2.5.0 is out. Any estimate for it to arrive Fedora, I am asking > because of the rebuilds that are necessary when the main package is requested > to avoid breaking updates. The latest updates to my packages already take > care of any possible incompatibility with this version... :-) The tarball hasn't hit the server yet. I was planning on doing a rebuild tonight. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Apr 26 14:53:27 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:53:27 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-r-devel-list] R 2.5.0 In-Reply-To: <1177434169.5956.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200704241725.34403.jamatos@fc.up.pt> <1177434169.5956.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1177599207.5956.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 12:02 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 17:25 +0100, Jos? Matos wrote: > > Hi, > > the version 2.5.0 is out. Any estimate for it to arrive Fedora, I am asking > > because of the rebuilds that are necessary when the main package is requested > > to avoid breaking updates. The latest updates to my packages already take > > care of any possible incompatibility with this version... :-) > > The tarball hasn't hit the server yet. I was planning on doing a rebuild > tonight. R 2.5.0 is in the repos now. Please rebuild anything that needs rebuilding. ~spot From tom at moertel.com Thu Apr 26 20:23:49 2007 From: tom at moertel.com (Tom Moertel) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:23:49 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-r-devel-list] Re: Additional R packages [arm, car, lme4, Matrix, coda, leaps, mlmRev] for Extras? In-Reply-To: <200704261858.16807.jamatos@fc.up.pt> References: <462FCFB2.2080905@moertel.com> <200704261858.16807.jamatos@fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <46310A55.5000001@moertel.com> Jos?, Thanks for your help. Now, on to your comments: Jos? Matos wrote: > Tom may I suggest that you join fedora-r-devel-list at redhat.com Done. I'm cc:ing this email to the list, too, mainly because of the discussion on R packaging work-arounds, which probably ought to be archived. For the same reason, I'm leaving more context in this email than I normally would. Tom Moertel wrote: >> For my internal use, I have packaged a number of R packages for FC6: >> >> * R-arm-1.0-2 >> * R-car-1.2-1 >> * R-lme4-0.9975-1 >> * R-Matrix-0.9975-1 >> * R-R2WinBUGS-2.0-1 >> * R-coda-0.10-1 >> * R-leaps-2.7-1 >> * R-mlmRev-0.995-1 >> >> Corresponding specs: >> http://community.moertel.com/rpms/fedora/6/SPECS/ >> >> For more details: >> http://blog.moertel.com/articles/2007/04/25/new-fedora-core-rpms-for-cran-packages > Are you aware of cran2rpmspec? > http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/R/cran2rpmspec No, I was completely unaware of cran2rpmspec. That would have made my job a bit easier. ;-) Thanks for pointing it out (and for writing it). >> Do you think there would be sufficient benefit to the Fedora community >> to merit adding these packages to Extras? If so, would you mind helping >> me get the packages into shape for submission? > > Sure on both issues. :-) Great! I assume that normally my next steps would be to create review requests for the packages, get sponsored, get a Fedora Account, check in my packages, and eventually queue up builds for my packages. Does that seem right? Looking ahead to that last step, how does the build system handle weird build-order requirements? Can the system, for example, infer from BuildRequires statements that it must build and install the R-Matrix package before it can try to build R-arm? (I couldn't find out how Plague deals with dependencies from my search of the wiki.) >> In any case, I ran into some difficulties during packaging. Can I ask >> for your advice? >> >> First, how do you deal with circular dependencies among R packages? The >> lme4 CRAN package, for example, "suggests" mlmRev, but mlmRev "depends" >> on lme4. Thus the %check stage's "R CMD check" for each of the packages >> tries to require the other package, which prevents either from building. >> I worked around this problem by disabling the %check stage of >> R-mlmRev, building that package first, installing it, and then building >> R-lme4, whose %check I left intact. (Since mlmRev is mainly data files, >> I felt its check was more expendable.) >> >> Can you suggest a better way of dealing with circular dependencies? > > The real solution would be for rpm to support these concepts. I think that > this will come, but for the moment a bootstrap solution like the one you have > used is necessary. What's the preferred method to automate the bootstrap solution? Should I write a script that builds the collection of packages? >> Second, R2WinBUGS depends on BRugs, which doesn't build on Linux (yet). >> As a result, the "R CMD check" for R-R2WinBUGS fails during the >> RPM-building process. Again, I disabled the %check stage to work around >> this problem. The result is a partially broken R-R2WinBUGS package, but >> the packages that depend upon it tangentially (e.g., R-arm) can still be >> built and installed. > > If this was a Fedora review I would suggest placing this comment near the > referred section. I already have the following in http://community.moertel.com/rpms/fedora/6/SPECS/R-mlmRev.spec: %check # disable check to avoid circular dependency w/ R-lme4. # since this package is just data files, we disable this package's # check instead of R-lme4's to break the dependency # # cd ..;%{_bindir}/R CMD check %{packname} Is that what you meant? Or should I do something else? >> Can you suggest a better way of dealing with missing dependencies like >> BRugs? > > http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/checkSummary.html > says that it works. What problems are you getting? CheckSummary.html does not claim that the package actually installs. And, in fact, during the install stage it aborts: + R CMD INSTALL BRugs -l \ /var/tmp/R-BRugs-0.3-1-root-thor/usr/lib64/R/library * Installing *source* package 'BRugs' ... Package 'BRugs' currently only works under Windows. It is supposed to work under Linux in future releases. ERROR: configuration failed for package 'BRugs' It might be difficult to work around that problem in the RPM spec. ;-) Thanks again for your help. >> P.S. I have also packaged Emacs Speaks Statistics: >> http://community.moertel.com/rpms/fedora/5/SPECS/emacs-ess.spec > > That would be super. :-) > My wife asked me for this package but I never got the necessary time to do it. Coincidentally, ESS 5.3.4 was just released today. Cheers, Tom From jamatos at fc.up.pt Sat Apr 28 11:16:21 2007 From: jamatos at fc.up.pt (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jos=E9_Matos?=) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:16:21 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-r-devel-list] Re: Additional R packages [arm, car, lme4, Matrix, coda, leaps, mlmRev] for Extras? In-Reply-To: <46310A55.5000001@moertel.com> References: <462FCFB2.2080905@moertel.com> <200704261858.16807.jamatos@fc.up.pt> <46310A55.5000001@moertel.com> Message-ID: <200704281216.21555.jamatos@fc.up.pt> On Thursday 26 April 2007 9:23:49 pm Tom Moertel wrote: > Jos?, > > Thanks for your help. Now, on to your comments: No problem. :-) > Jos? Matos wrote: > > Tom may I suggest that you join fedora-r-devel-list at redhat.com > > Done. > > I'm cc:ing this email to the list, too, mainly because of the discussion > on R packaging work-arounds, which probably ought to be archived. For > the same reason, I'm leaving more context in this email than I normally > would. Thank you, this is important. > Tom Moertel wrote: > >> For my internal use, I have packaged a number of R packages for FC6: > >> > >> * R-arm-1.0-2 > >> * R-car-1.2-1 > >> * R-lme4-0.9975-1 > >> * R-Matrix-0.9975-1 > >> * R-R2WinBUGS-2.0-1 > >> * R-coda-0.10-1 > >> * R-leaps-2.7-1 > >> * R-mlmRev-0.995-1 > >> > >> Corresponding specs: > >> http://community.moertel.com/rpms/fedora/6/SPECS/ > >> > >> For more details: > >> http://blog.moertel.com/articles/2007/04/25/new-fedora-core-rpms-for-cra > >>n-packages > > > > Are you aware of cran2rpmspec? > > http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/R/cran2rpmspec > > No, I was completely unaware of cran2rpmspec. That would have made my > job a bit easier. ;-) > > Thanks for pointing it out (and for writing it). FWIW there a bugzilla entry https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215927 to add a spectemplate for R modules to rpmdevtools. I would like to ask people in this list to comment if there is any omission or error in there as they are asking for our opinion. :-) Accordingly to my post there I have updated cran2rpmspec with the suggestions done there. So with this template and with cran2rpmspec it should not ever be necessary to start from scratch anymore. :-) > >> Do you think there would be sufficient benefit to the Fedora community > >> to merit adding these packages to Extras? If so, would you mind helping > >> me get the packages into shape for submission? > > > > Sure on both issues. :-) > > Great! > > I assume that normally my next steps would be to create review requests > for the packages, get sponsored, get a Fedora Account, check in my > packages, and eventually queue up builds for my packages. Does that > seem right? > > Looking ahead to that last step, how does the build system handle weird > build-order requirements? Can the system, for example, infer from > BuildRequires statements that it must build and install the R-Matrix > package before it can try to build R-arm? (I couldn't find out how > Plague deals with dependencies from my search of the wiki.) > > >> In any case, I ran into some difficulties during packaging. Can I ask > >> for your advice? > >> > >> First, how do you deal with circular dependencies among R packages? The > >> lme4 CRAN package, for example, "suggests" mlmRev, but mlmRev "depends" > >> on lme4. Thus the %check stage's "R CMD check" for each of the packages > >> tries to require the other package, which prevents either from building. > >> I worked around this problem by disabling the %check stage of > >> R-mlmRev, building that package first, installing it, and then building > >> R-lme4, whose %check I left intact. (Since mlmRev is mainly data files, > >> I felt its check was more expendable.) > >> > >> Can you suggest a better way of dealing with circular dependencies? > > > > The real solution would be for rpm to support these concepts. I think > > that this will come, but for the moment a bootstrap solution like the one > > you have used is necessary. > > What's the preferred method to automate the bootstrap solution? Should > I write a script that builds the collection of packages? No, as I think a bit more on this subject this would fail everytime that we update to a new R version, because the other library is not there. So I advise you to choose which to let only the more important dependency. This is a really an rpm issue and until it is fixed upstream our fixes are only band-aids. :-( > >> Second, R2WinBUGS depends on BRugs, which doesn't build on Linux (yet). > >> As a result, the "R CMD check" for R-R2WinBUGS fails during the > >> RPM-building process. Again, I disabled the %check stage to work around > >> this problem. The result is a partially broken R-R2WinBUGS package, but > >> the packages that depend upon it tangentially (e.g., R-arm) can still be > >> built and installed. > > > > If this was a Fedora review I would suggest placing this comment near > > the referred section. > > I already have the following in > http://community.moertel.com/rpms/fedora/6/SPECS/R-mlmRev.spec: > > %check > # disable check to avoid circular dependency w/ R-lme4. > # since this package is just data files, we disable this package's > # check instead of R-lme4's to break the dependency > # > # cd ..;%{_bindir}/R CMD check %{packname} > > Is that what you meant? Or should I do something else? This is perfect, it explains the reason why the check is commented. > >> Can you suggest a better way of dealing with missing dependencies like > >> BRugs? > > > > http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/checkSummary.html > > says that it works. What problems are you getting? > > CheckSummary.html does not claim that the package actually installs. > And, in fact, during the install stage it aborts: > > + R CMD INSTALL BRugs -l \ > /var/tmp/R-BRugs-0.3-1-root-thor/usr/lib64/R/library > > * Installing *source* package 'BRugs' ... > Package 'BRugs' currently only works under Windows. > It is supposed to work under Linux in future releases. > > ERROR: configuration failed for package 'BRugs' > > It might be difficult to work around that problem in the RPM spec. ;-) I agree. :-) Again this is an upstream issue. > Thanks again for your help. > > >> P.S. I have also packaged Emacs Speaks Statistics: > >> http://community.moertel.com/rpms/fedora/5/SPECS/emacs-ess.spec > > > > That would be super. :-) > > My wife asked me for this package but I never got the necessary time to > > do it. > > Coincidentally, ESS 5.3.4 was just released today. This together with the news coming from emacs 22 and 23 fronts are indeed great news. :-) > Cheers, > Tom PS: Usually I do trim the content of replies but in this case it was not obvious where to do it so I left. I am sorry for the redundant info. :-) -- Jos? Ab?lio From tcallawa at redhat.com Sat Apr 28 14:14:34 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:14:34 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-r-devel-list] Re: Additional R packages [arm, car, lme4, Matrix, coda, leaps, mlmRev] for Extras? In-Reply-To: <46310A55.5000001@moertel.com> References: <462FCFB2.2080905@moertel.com> <200704261858.16807.jamatos@fc.up.pt> <46310A55.5000001@moertel.com> Message-ID: <1177769674.5934.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 16:23 -0400, Tom Moertel wrote: > Looking ahead to that last step, how does the build system handle > weird > build-order requirements? Can the system, for example, infer from > BuildRequires statements that it must build and install the R-Matrix > package before it can try to build R-arm? (I couldn't find out how > Plague deals with dependencies from my search of the wiki.) Sortof. mock builds a chroot with all of the BuildRequires (and the Requires of those packages) installed, so if it is already built, it will be pulled in. If a BuildRequire isn't built yet (aka, not in the Fedora repository), that build will fail in the prep stage. ~spot