Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:47:06 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>, "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Not much reason to have */R-cran-* ports Message-ID: <5AB1AB8A.8050104@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <03cf592e-fd94-0228-8469-c9076583864f@rawbw.com> References: <791f8a7f-7f3e-2070-0be3-50494b1b2801@rawbw.com> <5AB15109.8010703@grosbein.net> <03cf592e-fd94-0228-8469-c9076583864f@rawbw.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
21.03.2018 3:32, Yuri wrote: > On 03/20/18 11:20, Eugene Grosbein wrote: >> It is a bit funny you are bothered on 250 R-cran-* ports when we have 1908 p5-* ports, >> 964 py-* ports, 600 rubygem-* ports and 280 hs-* ports in the single ports/devel category. >> >> Are you planning to ban and remove p5 ports too? Most of them should be from CPAN. >> We had BSDPAN for some time even... > > > You are missing the key differences: > > 1. Python and perl ports represent individually run software with their own executables, > when R doesn't. R packages are only useful in the context of R, as building blocks of larger R > programs only runnable in R environment. R packages are much more dependent on environment. This is exactly the same for most of devel/p5-* ports as they are just Perl libraries (modules) only useful in the context of Perl as building blocks of larger Perl programs only runnable in Perl environment.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5AB1AB8A.8050104>