From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zimoun Subject: Re: Move r-{desolve, quadprog, pracma, subplex} from maths.scm to cran.scm Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 17:03:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: <871ru0c6iq.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47333) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iYBOw-00067S-A9 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 11:03:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iYBOu-0001eI-T8 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 11:03:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: <871ru0c6iq.fsf@elephly.net> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: Guix Devel Hi Ricardo, Thank you for your inputs. On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 15:47, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > > The packages r-desolve, r-quadprog, r-subplex and r-pracma are defined > > in `maths.scm`. They come from the CRAN archive. For consistency, they > > should be defined in the file `cran.scm`. Do you agree to move them? > > I think moving them to cran.scm is fine. In my opinion both of these > places are similarly poor choices: maths.scm because we drag in the R > build system and dependencies, and cran.scm because it=E2=80=99s huge and= will > only get bigger. > > On the plus side, R code is rarely as =E2=80=9Cinvolved=E2=80=9D as Pytho= n code, so I > don=E2=80=99t expect cran.scm to become as tangled up with dependencies f= rom all > over the place as python-xyz.scm, so letting cran.scm grow is probably > just fine. Do you agree that we should document this rationale somewhere? AFAIK, nothing is written down about the lang-xyz.scm or the R land (cran vs bioconductor vs bioinformatics vs math vs statistiscs). I will read our materials and come back with a proposal: manual or cookbook or plain text in repo or etc. What do you think? > Since nobody else seems to hold any strong opinions on this issue, I=E2= =80=99d > say you=E2=80=99re welcome to move these package definitions to cran.scm. > Please also update the Copyright comments at the top of the file where > needed (use =E2=80=9Cgit blame=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cgit log=E2=80=9D to = simplify this task) and remove > whatever spurious module imports there may be in maths.scm after > removing the R package definitions. I submitted patches [1] that respect these advices. I hope so. :-) [1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D38184 > PS: I also think that CRAN things in bioinformatics.scm should be moved > to cran.scm, and even some or all of the R stuff in statistics.scm. > (Same applies to Bioconductor packages, which should end up in > bioconductor.scm where possible.) I will do. I will dig into the big move of Haskell or Lisp to see how it is better to split the commits. Thanks. simon