I think that should be the default in order to protect the user. Protecting the user from this sort of annoying conflict is important for a professionally working product that gets along with the rest of the Windows system.
On 5/5/07, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 04/05/2007 9:32 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote: > > It certainly would be excellent if installing perl could be eliminated. > > > > One additional thing that I really dislike about the R installation is that > > one needs "find" on one's path and that conflicts with "find" on Windows > > so other applications unrelated to R that use scripts can suddenly break > > because of R. If that could be solved at the same time it would be nice. > > At a minimum we should be able to wrap the calls to find in a macro, so > you could change the macro in MkRules and rename your copy from Rtools > to remove the conflict. I'll take a look. > > Duncan Murdoch > > > > > On 5/4/07, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 04/05/2007 4:25 PM, Greg Snow wrote: > >>> I have used the pp/par combination for Perl before. It is pretty > >>> straight forward to convert an existing perl script into a stand alone > >>> windows executable. > >>> > >>> Both the Activestate licence and the Perl Artistic licence allow for > >>> embedding a script and perl interpreter together and distributing the > >>> result. > >>> > >>> The current perl script(s) used for the R package build package could > >>> easily be converted to a 'stand alone' windows executable and be > >>> distributed with Rtools for those who do not want to install Perl > >>> themselves. > >>> > >>> The only drawback is that even a "Hello World" script will result in over > >>> a meg sized executable (due to the perl interpreter being included). > >> I took a quick look at the PAR page on CPAN, and it seems possible to > >> build a DLL that incorporates the interpreter, and then each individual > >> script .exe could be much smaller. I'll see if I can get that to work; > >> it would be really nice to be able to drop the Perl requirement. If we > >> could do that, I'd include the command line tools plus the compiled > >> scripts with the basic R distribution, so you could easily build simple > >> packages. The Rtools.exe installer would then just need to install the > >> MinGW compilers for packages containing compiled code, and a few extras > >> needed for building R. > >> > >> I don't really know Perl, so I might be asking for advice if I get stuck. > >> > >> Duncan Murdoch > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Gabor Grothendieck > >>> Sent: Fri 5/4/2007 11:55 AM > >>> To: Doran, Harold > >>> Cc: [email protected]; Duncan Murdoch > >>> Subject: Re: [R] [SPAM] - Re: R package development in windows - > >>> BayesianFilter detected spam > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Just googling I found this: > >>> > >>> http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=186402 > >>> > >>> On 5/4/07, Doran, Harold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> The best, of course, would be to get rid of Perl altogether. > >>>> In Python, it is possible to make standalone executables. Is it possible > >>>> to also do this in Perl, then one could eliminate a perl install. Or, is > >>>> it possible to use Python to accomplish what perl is currently doing? I > >>>> may be getting in over my head here since I really don't know what perl > >>>> is doing under the hood. > >>>> > >>>> Harold > >>>> > >>> ______________________________________________ > >>> [email protected] mailing list > >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > >>> PLEASE do read the posting guide > >>> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > >>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > ______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
