[ITP] R-2.14.1-1

Yaakov (Cygwin/X) yselkowitz@users.sourceforge.net
Fri Feb 10 10:36:00 GMT 2012

On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 10:52 +0100, marco atzeri wrote:
> On 2/10/2012 10:11 AM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> >> For what I saw they have the tendency to make their own version of any
> >> lib that does not fit on their exact expectation, for the same reason
> >> they do not consider libtool and have a very unusual build.
> >
> > Bundling libs is usually a bad idea, and as Debian, Fedora, and Gentoo
> > all seem to use the system lapack, I'd suggest to do so as well (as done
> > in Ports).
> the request was a bit strong
> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2011-November/062565.html
> It seems R is assuming math for NaN is a must.
> I agree that bundling libs is usually a bad idea, and that the normal
> solution is to solve the problem with upstream libs. But it seems
> that the math guys have less cross-cooperation skill than I usually
> expect by open source teams.
> Also netlib (blas/Lapack) have a peculiar development method....

I'm a bit confused from that thread.  Is this a Cygwin-specific problem
in our lapack package or do they just insist on using their own
(modified) blas/lapack?

As for their "request", experience has made me very skeptical (if not
downright cynical) of upstreams mixing in to downstream packaging
issues, *particularly* when it comes to Cygwin.  That being said, if
their blas/lapack is a must, then I won't object.  The other issues I
raised must definitely be fixed though, as they are already in Ports.


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list