Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Roel Janssen <r...@gnu.org> 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! :)
Great, then I'll take care of it.
>>> 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.
Okay. Then I will generate a diff between Boost-1.61.0 and this to see
whether there are any differences. I could then add a comment to the
package to state whether this is the original Boost source or not.
>> 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.
Of course. Your comments are much appreciated. I need to slow down a
bit and think more about the synopsis and descriptions of packages.. :)