From hintak_leung at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Jul 30 10:59:01 2009
From: hintak_leung at yahoo.co.uk (Hin-Tak Leung)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:59:01 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [Rd] R --vanilla for install/remove/shlib(Re: R 2.8->2.9 change
	that breaks some upgrade scenarios)
In-Reply-To: <19057.23190.432051.352920@lynne.math.ethz.ch>
Message-ID: <136624.77590.qm@web23106.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:

> I'm not sure this addresses all the problems that your
> patch
> tried to fix,
> but in any case, your patch re-installing the --vanilla
> behavior
> unconditionally (without the .libPaths()[1] detection) was
> not 
> suffificient.

But I think .libPaths should not be _implicitly_ user-/site- overridded - afterall, non-standard locations are already catered for with the -l option (which presumbably does the same thing as declaring R_LIBS, just explicitly).

This is analogous to installing system libraries and run-time relocation - while people do install binaries and libraries in non-standard locations and customize their $PATH and $LD_LIBRARY_PATH to reflect that either at the user- or site- level, it would be quite strange to allow ./configure or other equivalent software building tools to peek at the first part of PATH or LD_LIBRARY_PATH and put executables in the former and libraries in the latter... That's almost anarchy :-).






[Rd] R --vanilla for install/remove/shlib(Re: R 2.8->2.9 change that breaks some upgrade scenarios)
Hin-Tak Leung