From jtelleria.rproject at gmail.com  Mon Mar 26 17:40:36 2018
From: jtelleria.rproject at gmail.com (Juan Telleria Ruiz de Aguirre)
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:40:36 +0200
Subject: [Rd] =?utf-8?q?R_Lapack_=E2=80=93_why_a_subset=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <C4870C82-2C89-4089-BA56-0A3B87258FF0@nyu.edu>
References: <CANLFJPp0nvu1MQPQa6Qw0D+Tqb7Z228FZWZQKDtWf8Vr_snX1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <EBD08220-AD8A-49E6-90BE-90BEAE053AD6@cbs.dk>
 <C4870C82-2C89-4089-BA56-0A3B87258FF0@nyu.edu>
Message-ID: <CAJXDcw1jRPk6XV39azJ=PXd98iur9nszWy7r-S93q-XGq-XoFw@mail.gmail.com>

> Is the cost really so high as to preclude adding the remaining Lapack routines to Rlapack?

Updating Lapack Libraries shall not break compatibility, and rather
provide bug fixes I guess.

> the reason is that there would be a significant extra maintenance burden consisting of things that is not being used by R itself.

I agree with Keith O'Hara when she says that *"R is often used as a
front-end for libraries that do, so Rlapack-related linking errors are
arising more and more"*.

Maybe we could propose R-Core some SVN patches by ourselves for
R-alpha that update LAPLACK libraries and see how it looks like... :S

> http://www.netlib.org/lapack/archives/

> https://github.com/wch/r-source/tree/trunk/src/modules/lapack

And in SVN:

> svn checkout https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/ R-devel
> svn update
> svn diff > patch.diff



[Rd] =?utf-8?q?R_Lapack_=E2=80=93_why_a_subset=3F?=
Juan Telleria Ruiz de Aguirre