From jrm at ftfl.ca  Fri Nov 25 04:29:09 2016
From: jrm at ftfl.ca (Joseph Mingrone)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 23:29:09 -0400
Subject: [Rd] shared libraries: missing soname
In-Reply-To: <22583.42327.521157.462124@max.nulle.part> (Dirk Eddelbuettel's
	message of "Thu, 24 Nov 2016 20:43:35 -0600")
References: <868tsdohoe.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca>
	<22578.18597.717387.458240@max.nulle.part>
	<864m31ob4x.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca>
	<22578.23795.540869.831235@max.nulle.part>
	<86y40cgpsh.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca> <22579.48780.66762.666285@max.nulle.part>
	<86twb0go0c.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca> <22579.50911.667739.32126@max.nulle.part>
	<86twazaqbm.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca>
	<22581.24194.824366.415231@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<86h96ybimm.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca>
	<22581.50858.767147.808685@max.nulle.part>
	<868ts8nwdb.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca>
	<22583.42327.521157.462124@max.nulle.part>
Message-ID: <86zikome4a.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca>

Dirk,

Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> writes:
> You assume that change == breakage.  Yet that assumption is baseless.

> Which is what someone like Martin (R Core, and "at it" since the 80s pre-R
> and 90s with the almost very beginning of R) and myself (around R since the
> late 90s, somewhat involved since the early 00s) keep telling you.

> At some point it might appear to be approproiiate for you to actually take
> our word for it.

It is not that I am not taking your word.  There are some unique (to me)
approaches in R and some of them are subtle.  I am also taking criticism from
the other side, because, as I said, some conventions collide.  When Martin said,

> All these libraries "belong to R" and are tied to a specific version of R...

I understood that "tied to a specific version of R" meant that (Debian/FreeBSD)
R packages should be updated in lock step with R.  So, on Debian, changes in the
r-core package never necessitate a bump of r-cran-*?  In other words, the
libR.so interface is guaranteed to be stable across releases?

> | I also notice that on Debian you make a soft link of /usr/lib/R/lib/libR.so to
> | /usr/lib/libR.so.  Given all that has been discussed, I am unclear why.

> Well noticed -- yet a stricly personaly reason via two projects I have been
> (co-)authoring: littler and RInside. They both "embed" R via libR and we do
> both rpath ("somewhat" verboten by Debian Policy as it hard codes a path,
> hence the alternate of placing it where ldd / ldconfig find it).

> But please note that that is _me_ doing this, and the R Core gospel we have
> been trying for you to understand still stand: __what you insist is needed
> actually is not__.

Understood.

> | Thank you for sticking with the thread,

> Sorry for coming through as pedantic but you (and we're now at what, six
> posts in and counting?)  still start from the wrong (at least outside of the
> gilded confines of FreeBSD) premise. It. Just. Works.

> Just give us and the unknown-but-sometimes-estimated-to-be-in-the-millions of
> R users some credit. What is there __works__. Seriously.  Debian folks are
> pendantic for technical excellence __and even they have no issue with
> per-package and local shared libraries__.  Which is what this is. Really.

Pedantic is fine.  I give credit!  I would not be investing my (comparatively
minuscule) time if I did not appreciate R.  I would also not be doing anyone a
service if I released a flawed FreeBSD package that did not do the project
justice.

Joseph
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 930 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/attachments/20161124/770de6ee/attachment.bin>


[Rd] shared libraries: missing soname
Joseph Mingrone