Re: R packages

[Benny Siegert <bsiegert%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 06:00, Brook Milligan 
<brook%biology.nmsu.edu@localhost> wrote:
> Yes, there is definitely an analogy with the python and perl packages.
> However, I think there is a compelling argument that makes that
> analogy less useful in this case.  First, to my knowledge there are no
> tools creating python and perl packages from upstream information;
> perhaps there should be, but that is another issue.

I did something like this a few years ago for MirPorts: a tool that
can create perl module packages from information extracted with the
CPAN module, including, yes, a recursive mode.

I promised to port it to pkgsrc but I have not found the time yet. See
http://www.slideshare.net/bsiegert/painless-perl-ports-with-cpan2port
.

> Second, it is not
> clear how to discover the appropriate category to use, as there is
> generally no corresponding information in an individual package's
> DESCRIPTION file and even if there was there is no guarrantee that it
> would make sense within the context of the pkgsrc categories.  Thus,
> the tool cannot easily divine what category to use.

Or you could make the tool interactive and ask the user for the
category (which is what cpan2port did).

> Third, it is
> important to include dependency information in the generated
> Makefiles.  If R packages are scattered about in various directories,
> then it will be needlessly difficult to find them and generate
> appropriate DEPENDS clauses.

This is actually extremely easy. If your package is called R-foo (for
example), then doing

cd /usr/pkgsrc ; ls */R-foo

will yield the package name.

--Benny.

-- 
The first essential in chemistry is that you should perform practical
work and conduct experiments, for he who performs not practical work
nor makes experiments will never attain the least degree of mastery.
        -- Abu Musa Jabir ibn Hayyan (721-815)