From marco.atzeri at gmail.com  Thu Nov 17 12:33:02 2011
From: marco.atzeri at gmail.com (marco atzeri)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:33:02 +0100
Subject: [Rd] cygwin R-2.14.0 build fail
In-Reply-To: <4EC4CFC2.7040407@statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
References: <1321107923.21160.YahooMailNeo@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<4EC3D2BD.8070008@gmail.com>
	<alpine.LFD.2.02.1111162027520.28593@gannet.stats.ox.ac.uk>
	<4EC42656.6010704@gmail.com>
	<5B230290-335A-4825-9C2A-D30E54028A43@gmail.com>
	<4EC44869.3040206@gmail.com>
	<4EC4CFC2.7040407@statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
Message-ID: <4EC4F0EE.2040508@gmail.com>

On 11/17/2011 10:11 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:

> Everybody in this discussion invested too much time on it already. If
> you want to provide cygwin support for others, go ahead and tackle the
> problems, but don't distribute incorrectly working versions of R.
>
Dear Uwe,

first test versions are always by definition incorrectly
working versions.

Reading
http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-admin.html#BLAS
http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-admin.html#LAPACK

it is clear that R relies with its internal BLAS and Lapack 
implementation, differently from a lot of other packages.
May I suggest to add an additional note that also
external BLAS is not recommended as done for LAPACK.

It will be also worth to add a "not recommended" on the
   configure --help
output

   --with-blas             use system BLAS library (if available),
                           or specify it [no]
   --with-lapack           use system LAPACK library (if available),
                           or specify it [no]

as it is not obvious and it could mislead newcomers like me.

> Best,
> Uwe Ligges

Best Regards
Marco



[Rd] cygwin R-2.14.0 build fail
marco atzeri