Re: [R-sig-Fedora] Problem with the update to R 4.0.2 in the Fedora users' list
On Tuesday, 21 July 2020 16.43.31 WEST Tom Callaway wrote:
> I'm inclined to agree. Users are expecting that things they install
> manually will override the system default (if any).
>
> Tom
FWIW I agree with both of you.
OTOH someone who never did that kind of error please raise your hand. :-)
Does anyone knows if there is some kind of packages repository lint that could
catch this type of problems.
Those were the main points of this message.
What comes next it is just me thinking aloud since I am not proposing any,
immediate or medium term, change this are just what I have been thinking for a
long time.
One way to avoid this kind of errors would be to have the library directories
with R version like I suggested in May. Searching for this on the web I see
that users (mostly from windows and mac backgrounds) have some tips where the
directories that R version used to installed them is present in the name.
The recipes for upgrading were basically to take the names from installed
packages, save it into an external (csv) file and then with the new R version
to install those packages. In another context I do the same thing when I need
to install a new computer with Fedora and to have it working as soon as
possible:
in the previous computer
# rpm -qa --queryformat '%{name}\n' | sort | uniq > packages-list.txt
in the new computer
# dnf install $(cat packages-list.txt)
And voil� a new computer is ready will all the same packages as the previous
one.
I still think that this is a better naming scheme but looking briefly into the
installed packages I see that perl and ruby do not follow it.
End of thinking aloud...
--
Jos� Ab�lio
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
___
R-SIG-Fedora mailing list
R-SIG-Fedora@r-project.org
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-fedora
Re: [R-sig-Fedora] Problem with the update to R 4.0.2 in the Fedora users' list
I'm inclined to agree. Users are expecting that things they install manually will override the system default (if any). Tom On Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:39 AM Iñaki Ucar wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 17:17, José Abílio Matos wrote: > > > > There was a thread this weekend in the fedora users' mailing list where > a user > > had problems updating R 4.0.2: > > > > "non-rpm R libraries not accessible now w R v 4.0.x" > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/us...@lists.fedoraproject.org/ > > thread/2FFST3GWZCNM45SX53VKB255TO4LOV4C/ > > I don't follow that list, but I see you have everything under control, > thanks. > > > TLDR; as far as I can see the user had installed (as root) a package > from cran > > and had installed the same package (R-here) from the Fedora repositories. > > > > Since the package were installed in different locations the package > installed > > by the user appeared first and thus it won regarding the Fedora package. > The > > only problem was that the other package was installed using R 3.6 and > thus the > > user had the warning that seemed confusing. > > > > Are there any kind of tools to pick these cases or this is one of those > corner > > cases that are not worth the trouble? > > IMO it's not worth the trouble. Users should never install packages as > root. That's it. This may sound harsh, but, if they do, then they > should know what they're doing, and it's their problem. This is like > the seals on the screws of an electronic device: we ship one > configuration that works; we simply cannot foresee the countless ways > to break it once you start tinkering with it. :) > > -- > Iñaki Úcar > > ___ > R-SIG-Fedora mailing list > R-SIG-Fedora@r-project.org > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-fedora > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ___ R-SIG-Fedora mailing list R-SIG-Fedora@r-project.org https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-fedora
Re: [R-sig-Fedora] Problem with the update to R 4.0.2 in the Fedora users' list
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 17:17, José Abílio Matos wrote: > > There was a thread this weekend in the fedora users' mailing list where a user > had problems updating R 4.0.2: > > "non-rpm R libraries not accessible now w R v 4.0.x" > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/us...@lists.fedoraproject.org/ > thread/2FFST3GWZCNM45SX53VKB255TO4LOV4C/ I don't follow that list, but I see you have everything under control, thanks. > TLDR; as far as I can see the user had installed (as root) a package from cran > and had installed the same package (R-here) from the Fedora repositories. > > Since the package were installed in different locations the package installed > by the user appeared first and thus it won regarding the Fedora package. The > only problem was that the other package was installed using R 3.6 and thus the > user had the warning that seemed confusing. > > Are there any kind of tools to pick these cases or this is one of those corner > cases that are not worth the trouble? IMO it's not worth the trouble. Users should never install packages as root. That's it. This may sound harsh, but, if they do, then they should know what they're doing, and it's their problem. This is like the seals on the screws of an electronic device: we ship one configuration that works; we simply cannot foresee the countless ways to break it once you start tinkering with it. :) -- Iñaki Úcar ___ R-SIG-Fedora mailing list R-SIG-Fedora@r-project.org https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-fedora
