Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:32:05 -0700 From: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> To: "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Not much reason to have */R-cran-* ports Message-ID: <03cf592e-fd94-0228-8469-c9076583864f@rawbw.com> In-Reply-To: <5AB15109.8010703@grosbein.net> References: <791f8a7f-7f3e-2070-0be3-50494b1b2801@rawbw.com> <5AB15109.8010703@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. 2. With python, there is a hope of having all major software pieces in ports. With R there is no such hope. There are thousands of individual small R packages, while we only have 250 in ports with no hope or reason to add another few thousands. Now, if I want to use some R package should I look it up in ports and try to port if it is missing? Of course not, I will just install it from R. It's much easier this way, Yuri
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?03cf592e-fd94-0228-8469-c9076583864f>