Roel Janssen <> writes:

>> Okay.  I’ll make the change before pushing.
> If you want I can do the modifications as well and push.  Saves you some
> valuable time :)

Yes, that would be best.  I forgot that you already have push access! :)

>> I didn’t try to swap out the sources.  In my opinion this should be
>> treated as a fork.  It’s a subset of Boost with R-specific adaptations.
>> Other R packages may depend on this particular “flavour” and might not
>> work well otherwise.
>> If someone made the effort to change this, it would need to be checked
>> each time we updated our Boost package.  I don’t think we have the
>> infrastructure to keep track of these things, so I’d rather err on the
>> side of keeping things as upstream has them.
> Right.  I didn't compare the original boost sources with the one
> provided with the RBGL package, so I didn't know there were differences
> in code.

I should state that I also don’t *know* if there are differences.  But I
know that “r-bh”, for example, does something similar and we decided not
to make it reuse the upstream Boost sources for similar reasons.

> I agree to keep the "forked" Boost code instead of using the upstream
> Boost code for additional reasons:
> 1. It makes the package recipe much simpler.
> 2. It keeps the package as the maintainer of RBGL meant to distribute
> it.  The compile-time overhead is manageable (building the package on my
> machine takes less than ten minutes).
> I will take care of upstreaming this package and the other six I proposed.

Okay.  Please take a quick look at my comments before pushing.

~~ Ricardo

Reply via email to