From simon.urbanek at r-project.org  Wed Sep  2 20:30:03 2009
From: simon.urbanek at r-project.org (Simon Urbanek)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 14:30:03 -0400
Subject: [Rd] Including a binary Python Interpreter into a binary
	R-package for MS Windows
In-Reply-To: <57821.94131.qm@web65608.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <57821.94131.qm@web65608.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4E686DAA-D228-48A2-8587-83574EBDE13C@r-project.org>

On Sep 1, 2009, at 17:41 , gvsteen at yahoo.com wrote:

> 2009/8/30 Uwe Ligges <ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de>:
> [snip]
>> Guido van Steen wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Something that interests me too: What about R's policy with  
>>> respect to
>>> including binary files? I saw that developers should include a file
> [snip]
>> Please do not include binary files and carefully watch for licenses  
>> of those
>> files (e.g. if GPL'ed, you need to ship sources!). If pyhthon is  
>> required, I
>> highly suggest to state it in the SystemDependencies and be fine  
>> with it -
>> users can learn to install phython themselves, I'm pretty sure.
>
> Hi Uwe,
>
> Note: I will send this email cc. to the R-devel list, which I joined  
> today. I think it may be of interest to other people as well.
>
> Thank you for your answer, although it disappointed me a bit. I had  
> already spent quite some time building a stand-alone windows binary  
> of a new package "write2xls". This package provides the same R  
> interface to Python as the other package "dataframes2xls". As you  
> know it enable users to create xls files. The special thing about  
> "write2xls" is that it does not have any dependencies at all. It is  
> so-to-speak a turn-key solution.
>
> Of course I should have read a bit more before I started. Only after  
> your mail I read the pdf-file "Writing R Extensions". It says "A  
> source package if possible should not contain binary executable  
> files: they are not portable, and a security risk if they are of the  
> appropriate architecture. R CMD check will warn about them unless  
> they are listed (one filepath per line) in a file 'BinaryFiles' at  
> the top level of the package or bundle. Note that CRAN will no  
> longer accept submissions containing binary files even if they are  
> listed."
>
> So, yes, you are right. I was actually hoping that CRAN could make  
> some exceptions,

Just for other people - it is in general not necessary to make such  
exceptions because it's easy to pull any necessary binary dependencies  
at build or run time where needed and there are examples of packages  
that do exactly that (e.g. RGtk2 for run-time dependency installation  
of GTK+ and Cairo for build-time dependency installation). The rule on  
CRAN is just to make sure that the package can be compiled purely from  
sources and binaries are rather a convenience (Python can be equally  
well compiled form sources). Uwe's comment was about the necessity to  
make all sources available for GPL licensed packages in either case.

Cheers,
Simon



> but after some thinking I fully understand that many people would  
> object to this for good reasons: R code depending on a C compiler  
> will not work without a C Compiler either. For security reasons we  
> cannot allow packages to install a binary C compiler. So, yes, I  
> understand the reasons but still it is a pity.
>
> The current situation is that many MS Windows users can not easily  
> use "dataframes2xls". There are a few reasons:
>
> * Most users of MS Windows will be unfamiliar with Python, which  
> will make them reluctant to install Python.
>
> * Installing Python will be impossible on many MS Windows platforms  
> due to limited user rights.
>
> * Downloading a standard Python installer takes about 15 Megabytes.  
> My newly created "write2xls" package just contains 1.3 MB.
>
> So only few R users can benefit from "dataframes2xls". An  
> alternative to "dataframes2xls" is "write.xls". "dataframes2xls" is  
> technically superior, as it allows the specification of proper  
> formatting and fonts. "dataframes2xls" also exists longer. However,  
> "write.xls" is available to many more R users because it depends on  
> Perl, which is installed as a part of the R-tools.
>
> So, I think it would be a pity not to provide "write2xls", since I  
> have it readily available now. Therefore, I will probably be hosting  
> "write2xls" on a different repository, as long as no Python  
> Interpreter is included in the R-tools. Does anyone know of a  
> alternative repository, which does accept "trustworthy" R packages  
> with a binary Python Interpreter.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Guido van Steen
>
> P.S. For those who are interested or who would like to test it, at  
> the moment "write2xls" can be downloaded as "http://www.heppel.net/write2xls_0.4.4.9.zip 
> ". The "source" package is available as "http://www.heppel.net/write2xls_0.4.4.9.tar.gz 
> ".
>
> P.P.S. I think that on MS Windows the combination of R and the R  
> tools is just as much a potential security risk as allowing to  
> include a Python Interpreter in a binary package. The R website  
> should pay more serious attention to this.
>
> P.P.P.S. Uwe also brings up the issue of licensing. However, this is  
> not a problem at all. The Python license is one of the most  
> permissive licenses around. For the Python Interpreter that I  
> included in the "write2xls" package, I used pyMingW, which is  
> distributed under an MIT license. It is a version of Python compiled  
> by the MinGW compiler. Thanks to this pyMingW distribution I also  
> avoid the need of any Microsoft-owned dlls. "dataframes2xls" and  
> "write2xls" are also distributed under a MIT license.
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
>



[Rd] Including a binary Python Interpreter into a binary R-package for MS Windows
Simon Urbanek