> You are not enumerating your trade-offs very well. There are natural > conflicts. What is you really want? > > - Being able to pre-build and distribute? We have done that since the last > 5C1990s with .deb packages. > > - Being able to install with minimal size? Have you queried your users? I > note that among the Docker containers for R (in the "Rocker" project Carl and > I run) the _larger_ ones containing RStudio plus optionally "lots from > hadley" plus optionally lots of rOpenSci tend to me _more_ popular (for ease > of installation of the aggregate). > > And while share the overall sentiment a little bit, you have to realize that > it is 2016 with the corresponding bandwith and storage: > > edd@max:~$ du -csh /usr/local/lib/R/site-library/ > 1.5G /usr/local/lib/R/site-library/ > 1.5G total > edd@max:~$ > > And that it _outside_ of R itself, or the (numerous) other shared libraries.
OK, to be honest, it was rather a proof-of-concept than a specific idea. Other interpreted and VM-based languages have robust app deployment systems with smaller footprint, so I thought that it would be nice to have something similar in R. Maybe you are right and neither R developers, nor users actually need it. Thanks for the discussion, -p- ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
