I think its actually here: http://search.cpan.org/dist/ppt/
but would have the significant disadvantage of deepening the use of perl whereas I think the direction should be to get rid of perl. On 5/5/07, Greg Snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If we go the route of converting Perl scripts into windows executables, then > there is the Perl Power Tools (ppt) project for perl that aims to create a > cross platform set of common Unix tools (see > http://sourceforge.net/projects/ppt/, or the current > toolset can be downloaded from CPAN). The find utility has been included > for a while and I think we could get the author of that one to help. > > If all the Unix tools needed by R are included in ppt, then it may be > possible to use those in Rtools for an overall smaller footprint. The find > perl script could be compiled to an .exe and given a different name so that > it would not conflict with the windows find command. > > There would need to be some switch or something to indicate using these > tools rather than the standards for those that don't use the Rtools (but > insteal installed perl and the other tools). > > ________________________________ > From: Duncan Murdoch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sat 5/5/2007 6:06 AM > To: Gabor Grothendieck > Cc: Greg Snow; Doran, Harold; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [R] [SPAM] - Re: R package development in windows - > BayesianFilter detected spam > > > > > On 05/05/2007 8:00 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote: > > 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. > > I don't, because R building requires simulation of a subset of a Unix > environment, so in case of a Unix/Windows conflict, Unix should win. > For example none of the Makefiles use backslashes as path separators, > they all use Unix-style forward slashes. > > Duncan Murdoch > > > > > > 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.
