search for: bspm

...tes::install_version('Matrix', '1.5.1') ## we can confirm that we have Matrix 1.5.1 packageVersion("Matrix") ## we now install SeuratObject from source and to speed things up we first install the binary install.packages("SeuratObject") # in this container via bspm/r2u as binary ## and then force a source installation (turning bspm off) _while Matrix is at 1.5.1_ if (requireNamespace("bspm", quietly=TRUE) bspm::disable() Sys.setenv(PKG_CXXFLAGS='-Wno-ignored-attributes') # Eigen compilation noise silencer install.packages('SeuratObject&...

>>>>> Ben Bolker >>>>> on Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:25:33 -0400 writes: > Hmm, looks platform-specific. Under Linux both RStudio > and external R console return > a0b52513622c41c11e3ef57c7a485767 > for digest::digest(install.packages) Well, platform-specific maybe, notably probably the *RStudio*-version matters (for once). One one

The r2u repository [1] has been providing CRAN packages as Ubuntu binaries (with *full* and *complete* dependency resolution) since last May. It is being served from a well-connect Internet2 mirror thanks to the University of Illinois making it *fast*. By relying on the bspm package [2], it can access the 20k binaries (all of CRAN, essentially, and around 240 BioConductor packages for the two most recent Ubuntu LTS releases 22.04 and 20.04) via the standard R functions such as install.packages(). Over the last few months I have provided multiple 'demos' as ani...

Hi Dirk, One side observation: r-cran debian now seems to be in Ubuntu 20.10 Universe so I don't need to add the repo any more. Here is a reproducible example that fails with the latest r-cran-rcppparallel but works when I manually install the source package: require(rstan) stancode <- 'data {real y_mean;} parameters {real y;} model {y ~ normal(y_mean,1);}' mod <-

...sing one of these and have a bug. The best step would then be to contact the (Debian) package maintainer. But for completeness: The Rutter PPA remains extremely attractive as it offers 4700 packages---which is significantly more than the 900 in core. We also offer nice (and new) access layers via BSPM, or alternatively to RSPM serving "raw" binaries (not .deb packages). But that is a different topic. :) Hope this helps, Dirk -- https://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org

...g for a network card): ostype="sles9" name="mail2" memory=3192 vcpus=1 uuid="96cf02ef-525c-3099-5313-30b955c244d0" on_crash="destroy" on_poweroff="destroy" on_reboot="destroy" localtime=0 builder="linux" kernel="/tmp/kernel.bsPM-v" ramdisk="/tmp/install-initrd.smeCcF" extra=" install=hd:/dev/xvda " disk=[ ''file:/ISO_Files/SLES-9-SP4-CD-i386-GM-CD1.iso,xvda:cdrom,r'', ''phy:/dev/cciss/c0d0p7,xvdb,w'', ''file:/dev/cciss/c0dop6,xvdc,w'', ] vif = [ ] vf...

...ne of these and have a bug. The best step would then be to contact the (Debian) package maintainer. But for completeness: The Rutter PPA remains extremely attractive as it offers 4700 packages---which is significantly more than the 900 in core. We also offer nice (and new) access layers via BSPM, or alternatively to RSPM serving "raw" binaries (not .deb packages). But that is a different topic. :) Hope this helps, Dirk -- https://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | mailto:edd at debian.org

I posted a description of their changes this morning. Duncan Murdoch On 21/03/2024 11:37 a.m., avi.e.gross at gmail.com wrote: > With all this discussion, I shudder to ask this. I may have missed the > answers but the discussion seems to have been about identifying and solving > the problem rapidly rather than what maybe is best going forward if all > parties agree. > > What