On 24 May 2004 17:18:52 +0200, Peter Dalgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:41:18 +0200, Tamas Papp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >You are probably right in saying that they _could_ have done better, >> >but I would not use "should" in this context. AFAIK the package is >> >free (as in beer) software, which means that you are not paying for >> >it. The maintainers probably do not need a Linux version (yet), so it >> >was not easy to use it under Linux. Feel free to contribute. >> >> Yes, indeed! > >Well, yes and no. Yes, people should feel free to help out with the >maintenance, but no, it is not reasonable to leave cross-platform >issues unaddressed. There's a list of packages on CRAN in /bin/windows/contrib/1.9/@ReadMe that fail to build on Windows for one reason or another. Should we critcize the authors of those packages for not addressing cross-platform issues? I don't think so. Why should it be any different when the situation is reversed? Duncan Murdoch ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
