R SIG Fedora - Jul 2020 - Problem with the update to R 4.0.2 in the Fedora users' list

There was a thread this weekend in the fedora users' mailing list where a
user
had problems updating R 4.0.2:

"non-rpm R libraries not accessible now w R v 4.0.x"
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users at lists.fedoraproject.org/
thread/2FFST3GWZCNM45SX53VKB255TO4LOV4C/

TLDR; as far as I can see the user had installed (as root) a package from cran 
and had installed the same package (R-here) from the Fedora repositories.

Since the package were installed in different locations the package installed 
by the user appeared first and thus it won regarding the Fedora package. The 
only problem was that the other package was installed using R 3.6 and thus the 
user had the warning that seemed confusing.

Are there any kind of tools to pick these cases or this is one of those corner 
cases that are not worth the trouble?

Best regards,
-- 
Jos? Ab?lio

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 17:17, Jos? Ab?lio Matos <jamatos at fc.up.pt>
wrote:
>
> There was a thread this weekend in the fedora users' mailing list where
a user
> had problems updating R 4.0.2:
>
> "non-rpm R libraries not accessible now w R v 4.0.x"
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users at
lists.fedoraproject.org/
> thread/2FFST3GWZCNM45SX53VKB255TO4LOV4C/
I don't follow that list, but I see you have everything under control,
thanks.
> TLDR; as far as I can see the user had installed (as root) a package from
cran
> and had installed the same package (R-here) from the Fedora repositories.
>
> Since the package were installed in different locations the package
installed
> by the user appeared first and thus it won regarding the Fedora package.
The
> only problem was that the other package was installed using R 3.6 and thus
the
> user had the warning that seemed confusing.
>
> Are there any kind of tools to pick these cases or this is one of those
corner
> cases that are not worth the trouble?
IMO it's not worth the trouble. Users should never install packages as
root. That's it. This may sound harsh, but, if they do, then they
should know what they're doing, and it's their problem. This is like
the seals on the screws of an electronic device: we ship one
configuration that works; we simply cannot foresee the countless ways
to break it once you start tinkering with it. :)

-- 
I?aki ?car

I'm inclined to agree. Users are expecting that things they install
manually will override the system default (if any).

Tom

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:39 AM I?aki Ucar <iucar at fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 17:17, Jos? Ab?lio Matos <jamatos at fc.up.pt>
wrote:
> >
> > There was a thread this weekend in the fedora users' mailing list
where
> a user
> > had problems updating R 4.0.2:
> >
> > "non-rpm R libraries not accessible now w R v 4.0.x"
> >
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users at
lists.fedoraproject.org/
> > thread/2FFST3GWZCNM45SX53VKB255TO4LOV4C/
>
> I don't follow that list, but I see you have everything under control,
> thanks.
>
> > TLDR; as far as I can see the user had installed (as root) a package
> from cran
> > and had installed the same package (R-here) from the Fedora
repositories.
> >
> > Since the package were installed in different locations the package
> installed
> > by the user appeared first and thus it won regarding the Fedora
package.
> The
> > only problem was that the other package was installed using R 3.6 and
> thus the
> > user had the warning that seemed confusing.
> >
> > Are there any kind of tools to pick these cases or this is one of
those
> corner
> > cases that are not worth the trouble?
>
> IMO it's not worth the trouble. Users should never install packages as
> root. That's it. This may sound harsh, but, if they do, then they
> should know what they're doing, and it's their problem. This is
like
> the seals on the screws of an electronic device: we ship one
> configuration that works; we simply cannot foresee the countless ways
> to break it once you start tinkering with it. :)
>
> --
> I?aki ?car
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-SIG-Fedora mailing list
> R-SIG-Fedora at r-project.org
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-fedora
>
>
	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]