From MSchwartz at mn.rr.com  Thu Jun 16 17:00:17 2005
From: MSchwartz at mn.rr.com (Marc Schwartz)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:00:17 -0500
Subject: [Rd] R 2.1.1 slated for June 20
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0506161521220.12610@gannet.stats>
References: <x264wmbe6m.fsf@turmalin.kubism.ku.dk>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.0506101407430.4262@gannet.stats>
	<1118773739.3126.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<x2d5qoa9nf.fsf@turmalin.kubism.ku.dk>
	<1118786837.3968.14.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1118918509.3651.26.camel@seurat>
	<1118926290.4912.24.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.0506161521220.12610@gannet.stats>
Message-ID: <1118934017.4912.64.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 15:23 +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> 
> >> From what I can tell, there is only one reason that the FC-E R RPM is
> > available as a shared library:
> >
> > Tom had made the gnomeGUI CRAN package available as an RPM in FC-E,
> > which of course requires the above:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/extras/4/i386/repodata/repoview/R-gnomeGUI-0-2.1.0-4.html
> >
> > I would defer to the opinion of others here, but given the rather
> > limited functionality of the R GNOME GUI and that not much if any work
> > is presently being done on it (is that correct?), does Tom's approach
> > really make sense?
> 
> No work is being done on it.  It remains only as an example of a console 
> front-end.
> 
> Brian

That being the confirmed case, it seems reasonable to facilitate Tom's
making an informed decision as to the pros and cons of his approach and
that his choice is askew from a "default" R configuration. 

Needless to say, his choice, presumably based upon the inclusion of the
gnomeGUI package, is to an extent exclusionary to KDE and other DE users
who will (unknowingly) pay a defacto performance price if installing R
via FC-E.

Marc



[Rd] R 2.1.1 slated for June 20
Marc Schwartz