Bug#1037439: Opinions about removal of 32bit architecture for r-cran-rstan (Was: Bug#1037439: r-cran-rstan/armhf FTBFS with r-cran-bh 1.74)

2023-06-23 Thread Andreas Tille
Am Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 05:26:15AM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: > However pruning this off 32-bit archsn would also mean > removing a huge chunk of other R packages which transitively depend on rstan. > As far as I checked, not all of them are intensive to run, and it is > likely useful for people w

Bug#1037439: Opinions about removal of 32bit architecture for r-cran-rstan (Was: Bug#1037439: r-cran-rstan/armhf FTBFS with r-cran-bh 1.74)

2023-06-22 Thread Nilesh Patra
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 05:17:38AM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote: > > Stan is for power users on performant > > machines and these MCMC runs take a loong time. Oh, and I forgot to address this. You are right ofcourse, and probably not a lot of people would be interested in running rstan on 32-bit

Bug#1037439: Opinions about removal of 32bit architecture for r-cran-rstan (Was: Bug#1037439: r-cran-rstan/armhf FTBFS with r-cran-bh 1.74)

2023-06-22 Thread Nilesh Patra
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 03:45:28PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > But nobody suggested to turn 32bit builds for R off so it was not a question > that needed adressing. Or did I miss something here? Maybe my wording was a little confusing. I meant to keep the support for rstan by applying the pa

Bug#1037439: Opinions about removal of 32bit architecture for r-cran-rstan (Was: Bug#1037439: r-cran-rstan/armhf FTBFS with r-cran-bh 1.74)

2023-06-22 Thread Dirk Eddelbuettel
Nilesh, But nobody suggested to turn 32bit builds for R off so it was not a question that needed adressing. Or did I miss something here? We do have _a_ package failing. My first suggestion always is to talk to upstream (and I did so on June 13 in my first post on this bug report). Has anybody

Bug#1037439: Opinions about removal of 32bit architecture for r-cran-rstan (Was: Bug#1037439: r-cran-rstan/armhf FTBFS with r-cran-bh 1.74)

2023-06-22 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi Nilesh, Am Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 10:06:02PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: > 1. rstan has got a lot of reverse-build-deps and reverse-deps > and those reversd-deps have further more of them. rstan is kind of an > important package in that sense, and dropping 32-bit arch for this would > mean filing

Bug#1037439: Opinions about removal of 32bit architecture for r-cran-rstan (Was: Bug#1037439: r-cran-rstan/armhf FTBFS with r-cran-bh 1.74)

2023-06-22 Thread Nilesh Patra
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 01:56:16PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > If someone thinks we should keep 32bit support and apply the patch > suggested to r-base (which Dirk seems to be willing to) please speak > up soonish (in the next two weeks). I think we should keep 32-bit. Some reasons I can think o

Bug#1037439: Opinions about removal of 32bit architecture for r-cran-rstan (Was: Bug#1037439: r-cran-rstan/armhf FTBFS with r-cran-bh 1.74)

2023-06-22 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi Adrian and Dirk, thanks a lot to Adrian for taking the time to dig into R source code for a fix. Am Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 12:04:02PM -0500 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel: > | > Not sure that it is fair to point at BH / Boost though. Anyway. > | > > | > CRAN no longer checks / compiles 32 bit so up