On 30 March 2016 at 19:01, Andreas Tille wrote: | On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 07:02:04AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > | > | Could you please explain what size exactly is doubled? As far as I | > | understood r-cran-bh would be just a wrapper for the Debian packaged | > | libboost. | > | > Nope. As I explained to you before and in this thread, there is downside in | > differing from what is on CRAN. | | OK. At a second look I noticed how simple it is to replace BH by the | Debian packaged boost. I think I've got the downside but to my opinion
Yes, it is a simple sed call on DESCRIPTION, coupled with a Build-Depends. But -- you risk creating different packages, creating different behaviour and possibly very different to track bugs. Having thought about this for a bit, I came to the conclusion that I'd rather package r-cran-bh. | its way more sensible to avoid code duplication as a general rule and | run the accompanying test suite of the packages to ensure that | everything works as expected. | | In other words I do not need the r-cran-bh package as a predependency | of my packages any more. Entirely your call, but as I state above, one that I would NOT make. One of the strongest things about R is the consistent reliability across installation. You are starting to differ here. It may not matter most of the time, only to all of sudden become an issue -- that may be hard to track form someone not familiar with these details. In my view saving 5mb in the archive is not worth it. Dirk | | Kind regards | | Andreas. | | -- | http://fam-tille.de -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | [email protected]
