Thanks for some good tips. More detailed responses below: On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 00:23 +0000, Liviu Andronic wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Ross Boylan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Some packages are available in cran2deb and Debian. After adding > > cran2deb to my sources.list it seems the cran2deb ones are favored > > because X.Y-ZcranN is "more recent" than X.Y-Z. > > > Hmm, my experience has been different: Debian packages were preferred > over cran2deb. Can you give a specific example that bugs you? I gave an example in the next paragraph of the original: r-cran-rmpi.
The example in your email [1] is a situation in which the base version is higher in Debian, roughly X.Y-(Z+1) vs cran2deb at X.Y-Z. > > > > In the case of r-cran-rmpi the effect of this was to cause aptitude to > > want to uninstall all my mpi stuff. Apparently the automatically > > generated package doesn't have mpi as a dependency. > > > Wouldn't it be sufficient to set mpi as "manually installed", as > opposed to automatically, as a dependency? That should work; I may need to do that with a couple of mpi packages. The debian 0.5.8-1 r-cran-rmpi has Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.5), libopenmpi1.3, r-base-core (>= 2.10.1), mpi-default-bin > > > > Do people have any general advice about how to handle this situation? > > > You might want to try an approach similar to this [1]. > [1] https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-debian/2009-December/000970.html > Thanks; that's very handy. I didn't realize that cran2deb had a distinct name. > > > There probably is no one rule for what to do. The official packages are > > more carefully done, but the automatic packages may be more recent. At > > > I am curious, what makes you think so? I made several assertions and don't know to which you refer. Ross _______________________________________________ R-SIG-Debian mailing list [email protected] https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-debian
