thr3ads.net - R devel - [Rd] Runnable R packages [Feb 2019]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Barry Rowlingson

2019-Feb-02 13:27 UTC

[Rd] Runnable R packages

I don't think anyone denies that you *could* make an EXE to do all
that. The discussion is on *how easy* it should be to create a single
file that contains an initial "main" function plus a set of bundled
code (potentially as a package) and which when run will install its
package code (which is contained in itself, its not in a repo),
install dependencies, and run the main() function.

Now, I could build a self-executable shar file that bundled a package
together with a script to do all the above. But if there was a "RUN"
command in R, and a convention that a function called "foo::main"
would be run by `R CMD RUN foo_1.1.1.tar.gz` then it would be so much
easier to develop and test.

If people think this adds value, then if they want to offer that value
to me as $ or ?, I'd consider writing it if their total value was more
than my cost....

Barry

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 12:54 AM Abs Spurdle <spurdle.a at gmail.com>
wrote:>
> Further to my previous post,
> it would be possible to create an .exe file, say:
>
> my_r_application.exe
>
> That starts R, loads your R package(s), calls the R function of your choice
> and does whatever else you want.
>
> However, I don't think that it would add much value.
> But feel free to correct me if you think that I'm wrong.
>
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Duncan Murdoch

2019-Feb-02 14:30 UTC

head link

[Rd] Runnable R packages

On 02/02/2019 8:27 a.m., Barry Rowlingson wrote:> I don't think anyone denies that you *could* make an EXE to do all
> that. The discussion is on *how easy* it should be to create a single
> file that contains an initial "main" function plus a set of
bundled
> code (potentially as a package) and which when run will install its
> package code (which is contained in itself, its not in a repo),
> install dependencies, and run the main() function.
> 
> Now, I could build a self-executable shar file that bundled a package
> together with a script to do all the above. But if there was a
"RUN"
> command in R, and a convention that a function called "foo::main"
> would be run by `R CMD RUN foo_1.1.1.tar.gz` then it would be so much
> easier to develop and test.
I don't believe the "so much easier" argument that this requires a
change to base R.  If you put that functionality into a package, then 
the only extra effort the user would require is to install that other 
package.  After that, they could run

Rscript -e "yourpackage::run_main('foo_1.1.1.tar.gz')"

as I suggested before.  This is no harder than running

R CMD RUN foo_1.1.1.tar.gz

The advantage of this from R Core's perspective is that you would be 
developing and maintaining "yourpackage", you wouldn't be passing
the
burden on to them.  The advantage from your perspective is that you 
could work with whatever packages you liked.  The "remotes" package
has
almost everything you need so that "yourpackage" could be nearly 
trivial.  You wouldn't need to duplicate it within base R.

Duncan Murdoch
> 
> If people think this adds value, then if they want to offer that value
> to me as $ or ?, I'd consider writing it if their total value was more
> than my cost....
> 
> Barry
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 12:54 AM Abs Spurdle <spurdle.a at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> Further to my previous post,
>> it would be possible to create an .exe file, say:
>>
>> my_r_application.exe
>>
>> That starts R, loads your R package(s), calls the R function of your
choice
>> and does whatever else you want.
>>
>> However, I don't think that it would add much value.
>> But feel free to correct me if you think that I'm wrong.
>>
>>          [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>

David Lindelof

2019-Feb-02 16:31 UTC

head link

[Rd] Runnable R packages

I see some value in Duncan?s proposal to implement this as an extra package
instead of a change to base R, if only to see if the idea has legs. I?m
minded to do so myself using your suggestion, but is there a particular
reason why you recommend using the remotes package instead of devtools? The
latter seems to have the same functions I would need, and I believe it is
more widely installed that remotes?

Kind regards,

From: Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> <murdoch.duncan at
gmail.com>
Reply: Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> <murdoch.duncan at
gmail.com>
Date: 2 February 2019 at 15:37:16
To: Barry Rowlingson <b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk>
<b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk>, Abs Spurdle <spurdle.a at
gmail.com>
<spurdle.a at gmail.com>
Cc: r-devel <r-devel at r-project.org> <r-devel at r-project.org>
Subject:  Re: [Rd] Runnable R packages

On 02/02/2019 8:27 a.m., Barry Rowlingson wrote:> I don't think anyone denies that you *could* make an EXE to do all
> that. The discussion is on *how easy* it should be to create a single
> file that contains an initial "main" function plus a set of
bundled
> code (potentially as a package) and which when run will install its
> package code (which is contained in itself, its not in a repo),
> install dependencies, and run the main() function.
>
> Now, I could build a self-executable shar file that bundled a package
> together with a script to do all the above. But if there was a
"RUN"
> command in R, and a convention that a function called "foo::main"
> would be run by `R CMD RUN foo_1.1.1.tar.gz` then it would be so much
> easier to develop and test.
I don't believe the "so much easier" argument that this requires a
change to base R. If you put that functionality into a package, then
the only extra effort the user would require is to install that other
package. After that, they could run

Rscript -e "yourpackage::run_main('foo_1.1.1.tar.gz')"

as I suggested before. This is no harder than running

R CMD RUN foo_1.1.1.tar.gz

The advantage of this from R Core's perspective is that you would be
developing and maintaining "yourpackage", you wouldn't be passing
the
burden on to them. The advantage from your perspective is that you
could work with whatever packages you liked. The "remotes" package has
almost everything you need so that "yourpackage" could be nearly
trivial. You wouldn't need to duplicate it within base R.

Duncan Murdoch
>
> If people think this adds value, then if they want to offer that value
> to me as $ or ?, I'd consider writing it if their total value was more
> than my cost....
>
> Barry
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 12:54 AM Abs Spurdle <spurdle.a at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> Further to my previous post,
>> it would be possible to create an .exe file, say:
>>
>> my_r_application.exe
>>
>> That starts R, loads your R package(s), calls the R function of your
choice>> and does whatever else you want.
>>
>> However, I don't think that it would add much value.
>> But feel free to correct me if you think that I'm wrong.
>>
>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
______________________________________________
R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel


David Lindel?f, Ph.D.
+41 (0)79 415 66 41 <//415 66 41> or skype:david.lindelof
http://computersandbuildings.com
Follow me on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/dlindelof

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Abs Spurdle

2019-Feb-02 21:28 UTC

head link

[Rd] Runnable R packages

Creating an .exe file isn't necessarily difficult.
The main problems are that you have to write and compile the C (or other)
files.
Otherwise, the complexity depends on the level of Inter Process
Communication that's required.

Simply starting R with some initial conditions, is easy.
Even if you want to prompt the user to install missing packages, it isn't
necessarily difficult.

It would be possible to take this one step further, and write an .exe
builder, that automates the process of creating .exe files.
Obviously, it would require a compiler and supporting libraries.
I have a preference for GCC, and I'm not sure if you can run GCC on Windows
without Cygwin.

I may (or may not) look into this further, in a few weeks time.

On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 2:27 AM Barry Rowlingson <
b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
> I don't think anyone denies that you *could* make an EXE to do all
> that. The discussion is on *how easy* it should be to create a single
> file that contains an initial "main" function plus a set of
bundled
> code (potentially as a package) and which when run will install its
> package code (which is contained in itself, its not in a repo),
> install dependencies, and run the main() function.
>
> Now, I could build a self-executable shar file that bundled a package
> together with a script to do all the above. But if there was a
"RUN"
> command in R, and a convention that a function called "foo::main"
> would be run by `R CMD RUN foo_1.1.1.tar.gz` then it would be so much
> easier to develop and test.
>
> If people think this adds value, then if they want to offer that value
> to me as $ or ?, I'd consider writing it if their total value was more
> than my cost....
>
> Barry
>

___________________________________________> > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Peter Meissner

2019-Feb-07 08:38 UTC

head link

[Rd] Runnable R packages

Doesn't Rtools provide everything needed to build R packages and R on
Windows - including gcc?

Am Sa., 2. Feb. 2019 um 22:29 Uhr schrieb Abs Spurdle <spurdle.a at
gmail.com>:
> Creating an .exe file isn't necessarily difficult.
> The main problems are that you have to write and compile the C (or other)
> files.
> Otherwise, the complexity depends on the level of Inter Process
> Communication that's required.
>
> Simply starting R with some initial conditions, is easy.
> Even if you want to prompt the user to install missing packages, it
isn't
> necessarily difficult.
>
> It would be possible to take this one step further, and write an .exe
> builder, that automates the process of creating .exe files.
> Obviously, it would require a compiler and supporting libraries.
> I have a preference for GCC, and I'm not sure if you can run GCC on
Windows
> without Cygwin.
>
> I may (or may not) look into this further, in a few weeks time.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 2:27 AM Barry Rowlingson <
> b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > I don't think anyone denies that you *could* make an EXE to do all
> > that. The discussion is on *how easy* it should be to create a single
> > file that contains an initial "main" function plus a set of
bundled
> > code (potentially as a package) and which when run will install its
> > package code (which is contained in itself, its not in a repo),
> > install dependencies, and run the main() function.
> >
> > Now, I could build a self-executable shar file that bundled a package
> > together with a script to do all the above. But if there was a
"RUN"
> > command in R, and a convention that a function called
"foo::main"
> > would be run by `R CMD RUN foo_1.1.1.tar.gz` then it would be so much
> > easier to develop and test.
> >
> > If people think this adds value, then if they want to offer that value
> > to me as $ or ?, I'd consider writing it if their total value was
more
> > than my cost....
> >
> > Barry
> >
>
>
> ___________________________________________
> > > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> >
>
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

David Lindelof

2019-Feb-08 08:09 UTC

head link

[Rd] Runnable R packages

Yesterday I wrote and submitted to CRAN a package `run`, which implements
the ideas discussed in this thread. Given a package tarball
foo_0.1.0.tar.gz, users will be able to run

Rscript -e "run::run('foo_0.1.0.tar.gz')"

which will pull all the dependencies of package `foo`, lookup a function
`main` in that package's namespace, and call it.

It's an early draft but I'd appreciate any feedback (once its submission
is
accepted, of course).

Thanks all for your help and advice,

David

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 3:37 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at
gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 02/02/2019 8:27 a.m., Barry Rowlingson wrote:
> > I don't think anyone denies that you *could* make an EXE to do all
> > that. The discussion is on *how easy* it should be to create a single
> > file that contains an initial "main" function plus a set of
bundled
> > code (potentially as a package) and which when run will install its
> > package code (which is contained in itself, its not in a repo),
> > install dependencies, and run the main() function.
> >
> > Now, I could build a self-executable shar file that bundled a package
> > together with a script to do all the above. But if there was a
"RUN"
> > command in R, and a convention that a function called
"foo::main"
> > would be run by `R CMD RUN foo_1.1.1.tar.gz` then it would be so much
> > easier to develop and test.
>
> I don't believe the "so much easier" argument that this
requires a
> change to base R.  If you put that functionality into a package, then
> the only extra effort the user would require is to install that other
> package.  After that, they could run
>
> Rscript -e "yourpackage::run_main('foo_1.1.1.tar.gz')"
>
> as I suggested before.  This is no harder than running
>
> R CMD RUN foo_1.1.1.tar.gz
>
> The advantage of this from R Core's perspective is that you would be
> developing and maintaining "yourpackage", you wouldn't be
passing the
> burden on to them.  The advantage from your perspective is that you
> could work with whatever packages you liked.  The "remotes"
package has
> almost everything you need so that "yourpackage" could be nearly
> trivial.  You wouldn't need to duplicate it within base R.
>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
> >
> > If people think this adds value, then if they want to offer that value
> > to me as $ or ?, I'd consider writing it if their total value was
more
> > than my cost....
> >
> > Barry
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 12:54 AM Abs Spurdle <spurdle.a at
gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Further to my previous post,
> >> it would be possible to create an .exe file, say:
> >>
> >> my_r_application.exe
> >>
> >> That starts R, loads your R package(s), calls the R function of
your
> choice
> >> and does whatever else you want.
> >>
> >> However, I don't think that it would add much value.
> >> But feel free to correct me if you think that I'm wrong.
> >>
> >>          [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________
> >> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> >
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Apparently Analagous Threads

Search for more apparently analagous threads

R devel - Feb 2019 - Runnable R packages

[Rd] Runnable R packages

[Rd] Runnable R packages

[Rd] Runnable R packages

[Rd] Runnable R packages

[Rd] Runnable R packages

[Rd] Runnable R packages

Apparently Analagous Threads