From edd at debian.org  Mon Feb 21 15:07:49 2005
From: edd at debian.org (Dirk Eddelbuettel)
Date: Mon Feb 21 15:07:58 2005
Subject: [Rd] Re: [R] minus I and minus L flags
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0502210936520.15731@gannet.stats>
References: <200502201109.j1KB8jOX030138@hypatia.math.ethz.ch>
	<20050220171208.GA13943@stat.umn.edu>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.0502210936520.15731@gannet.stats>
Message-ID: <16921.60213.29905.834798@basebud.nulle.part>


On 21 February 2005 at 10:17, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
| [This is getting rather technical, so moved to R-devel.]

Yup.

| I looked at the examples on CRAN, and failed to find one that allowed 
| users to specify the paths flexibly.  RQuantian mentioned by Dirk does 

(Nit: RQuantLib, not RQuantian)

| allow the Boost paths to be set, but not the quantlib-config path (at 
| least it is not mentioned in RQuantian/configure --help), and it appears 

I plead guiltu to ignoring the run-time switches to configure. QuantLib makes
use of configuration helper script quantlib-config, and boost "worked" so far.

| not be make use of the Boost paths that can be set. (Dirk: surely they 
| need to be appended to pkg_cxxflags and pkg_libs?)

I'm a bit puzzled about that:

edd@basebud:~> ldd /usr/lib/R/site-library/RQuantLib/libs/RQuantLib.so
        libQuantLib-0.3.8.so => /usr/lib/libQuantLib-0.3.8.so (0x400d2000)
        libR.so => not found
        libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x40577000)
        libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x40631000)
        libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x40653000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x4065c000)
        /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x80000000)
edd@basebud:~> 

Apparently it doesn't need boost to resolve the .so loaded into R. It does
need the headers to compile. And it runs fine.

But your point is well taken. I should extend the configure.in one day. 

Dirk

-- 
Better to have an approximate answer to the right question than a precise 
answer to the wrong question.  --  John Tukey as quoted by John Chambers


[Rd] Re: [R] minus I and minus L flags
Dirk Eddelbuettel