On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi Roger,
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, Roger Bivand wrote:
>> Really? Why should the user of the system have to accept a gratiuitous
>> install of about 100MB for just R itself, and perhaps 50MB is additional
>> unneeded packages without asking for them? How may the user know in advance
> Well, that is the discrepancy that always will happen when you rescind
> work to others, in this case the packagers.
> You can set up your own slackware Linux, and install every single
> package by hand. Then you can select *exactly* what you have installed.
> But if you leave decisions to others, by using a distribution, the
> distribution rules apply, even if you don't like them.
I accept that packages are rule makers and those installing packages are
rule takers in general.
I'm only questioning this particular case, as I'm convinced that, after an
R.core installation triggered by a dependency in includernw on R-knitr and
its R package dependency, trying to build the latex in R chunks in the Rnw
file will fail, because they in turn try to load other R packages that are
Yes, the includernw latex package can run its own example, but that is
about its limit unless the user already has an R installation.
> One of the rules most distributions have is that if you install a
> package it is ready to use, and necessary dependencies are installed.
> And for *most* users this is the *correct* way (I stand by this!). For
> those who want something else, they need to invest time and energy, like
> doing equivs packages, installing things only by hand, whatever.
I've bowed to your position as rule maker and mine as rule taker and used
PATH to avoid finding the spuriously installed R version.
>> that extraneous dependencies have been added? Why then should that user have
>> to work out how to block extraneous installs of duplicate software, and to
> How should the packaging system GUESS what you have installed, and
> whether it is in the right version etc etc.???
> Sorry, you obviously have absoutely no idea about what the work of
> distributors comprises, and instead of asking politely where to ask and
> what to do, you are criticizing people who do an incredible hard work to
> ship you a ready-made distribution.
> I ask you a last question: Did you install a desktop environment, like
> KDE or GNOME?
> If yes, did you select *each*single*necessary* library and sub-program
> that is necessary for it to run?
> I guess you didn't. And there are for sure many packages installed (like
> tracker, or zeitgeist, or whatever) that you maybe not know about and
> never use.
> And, did you complain?
> It is only because you have your special setup that passes the
> distribution packaging, and expect that distributors can conjure up some
> magic that automatically agrees with your policy.
> Please, get down to earth, and appreciate the work distributors, and
> that includes us as TeX Live team, as well as all those doing packaging
> work for Linux distributors, are doing.
>> Please tell me where to go to get includernw de-listed from
>> texlive-collection-mathscience and texlive-scheme-medium. Who maintains or
>> curates these lists, where may issues be raised?
> We told this to you already several times, it is Fedora. Use whatever
> bug report mechanism is there. I don't use Fedora, I don't know, but
> surely they have a bug tracking database.
>> dependencies), I really do not need my workflows disrupted.
> AGAIN!!! If you set up your stuff correctly, your workflow IS NOT
> disrupted, because the R installation *you* have installed is found
> first. If it is disrupted, then your setup is broken.
> PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info
> Accelia Inc. + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Developer
> GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13
Department of Economics, Norwegian School of Economics,
Helleveien 30, N-5045 Bergen, Norway.
voice: +47 55 95 93 55; e-mail: ***@nhh.no