Re: rgdal?

[Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu>]

Hi,

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 03:48:05PM +0200, Johan Van de Wauw wrote:
> >> IMHO The major reason that it is not packaged is that R has a
> >> convenient packaging system itself.  For most modules I don't think
> >> packaging as a deb is that useful. I don't really see the point in
> >> getting updates to my R packages through my operating system.
> >
> > Hi,
> > you are certainly right - in the past, however, I got troubles when
> > upgrading R, having libraries in forder which are different from what R
> > from deb expects. Tha'ts why I always prefer a packaged solution.
> > All the best.
> 
> RGDAL is probably one of the R packages where a debian package is
> actulally useful, since it does not only contain scripts but it has to
> be compiled.
> 
> Anyone considering packaging this could definitely start from the
> package in osgeo live:
> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/206067892/rgdal_0.9-2-1cran2ppa0.diff.gz

In Debian Med we do package several R packages.  While there are people
who do not like this (for the main reason that we are not always
catching up with upstream development) there are users (either by
explicitly thanking, requesting packages, doing packages themselves for
sponsering or simply via popcon) are happy with this.  I personally do
see two major advantages of the packaging:

  1. You can depend from these packages (for instance in Blends
     metapackages or otherwise)

  2. You can run the test suite (at build time or as autopkgtest)

Since I consider both as valuable features I'd personally recommend
packaging.

Kind regards

        Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de