From edd at debian.org  Fri Jun  6 14:33:38 2008
From: edd at debian.org (Dirk Eddelbuettel)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 07:33:38 -0500
Subject: [Rd] RFC: Add 'postinstall' hook to R CMD INSTALL ?
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0806061310320.16732@gannet.stats.ox.ac.uk>
References: <18503.62153.774662.127482@ron.nulle.part>
	<alpine.LFD.1.10.0806051514190.6771@gannet.stats.ox.ac.uk>
	<18505.9993.574030.720761@ron.nulle.part>
	<alpine.LFD.1.10.0806061310320.16732@gannet.stats.ox.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <18505.11938.823368.34327@ron.nulle.part>


On 6 June 2008 at 13:13, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
| > On 6 June 2008 at 11:34, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
| > | Isn't this what Type: Frontend is for?  That gives you complete control
| > | and would seem appropriate for both of your examples.
| >
| > Interesting.  But the R Extensions manual says
| >
| >   1.10.1 Frontend
| >   ---------------
| >
| >   This is a rather general mechanism, designed for adding new front-ends
| >   such as the *gnomeGUI* package.  If a `configure' file is found in the
| >   top-level directory of the package it is executed, and then if a
| >   `Makefile' is found (often generated by `configure'), `make' is called.
| >   If `R CMD INSTALL --clean' is used `make clean' is called.  No other
| >   action is taken.
| >
| > I am talking about the need for 'other action' such as 'make install', say.
| >
| > Are you suggesting I shoehorn what I want done into the main 'make' target ?
| 
| Yes.  I don't see it as 'shoehorn' -- it is the install step.

I have to think about this. I was envisioning a degree of freedom between
'make' and 'make install'. I may need some optionality here.

Anyway -- thanks for the suggestions. It is indeed very close to what I had
asked for.

Dirk

-- 
Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.



[Rd] RFC: Add 'postinstall' hook to R CMD INSTALL ?
Dirk Eddelbuettel