similar to: Chime Clarification: Buildable on only nv_35 or Runnable?

Bfu 91 to 92 looks good Proceed with xVM upgrade . After running:- # sunos.hg/bin/build-all nondebug bash-3.2# cd packages-nondebug bash-3.2# pwd /usr/tmp/packages-nondebug bash-3.2# ls -l total 20 drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 512 Jun 21 08:57 SUNWlibvirt drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 512 Jun 21 08:57 SUNWlibvirtr drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 512 Jun 21 08:57 SUNWurlgrabber

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2640 Bug ID: 2640 Summary: Make gnome-ssh-askpass2 buildable with GTK+ 3 Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 7.3p1 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: Miscellaneous Assignee:

I've noticed that some reviews, but not others, show up in Phab with a "buildable" indication in a "Diff Detail" box, just below the summary. Can somebody describe what that's about? Most interesting might be why it's there only sometimes, also what sort of "build" this indication is reporting. Thanks, --paulr

Author: wesolows Repository: /hg/zfs-crypto/gate Revision: f0ba1ee4d57611c825dcb431c1669a592147e7f9 Log message: 6242262 ON should be buildable with gcc (fix build noise) Files: update: usr/src/tools/scripts/nightly.sh

Hi All, I just posted a review with arcanist (which I'm fairly new to) and it included a build status. How it got there is totally opaque to me, but my workflow was: Using git+svn (following the setup in https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#for-developers-to-work-with-git-svn) make a change, commit with 'git commit', create review with 'air diff'. It would be cool if

After building and bfu''in the lastest ON build, any time I run a dtrace script I get a Seg Fault. Is there a dtrace for dtrace :) Doug root at prae> dtrace -n ''syscall::open*:entry { printf("%s %s",execname,copyinstr(arg0)); }'' Segmentation Fault (core dumped) root at prae> pstack core core ''core'' of 101364: dtrace -n

Hi All, I''ve got a problem when I have USDT probes in a static library and in the application code outside of the library. I build the static library containing some USDT probes, glomming everything together (ld -r) before creating the .a file to preserve the probe symbols. This all works fine. I build an application which also has some USDT probes. When I build the application which

Belated thanks to all who replied to my initial query. In summary, three approaches have been mentioned to run R code "in production": 1) ShinyProxy, mentioned by Tobias, for deploying Shiny applications; 2) Docker-like solutions, mentioned by Gergely and I?aki; and 3) Solutions based on Rscript or littler, mentioned by Dirk. I can't speak to 1) because I don't currently use

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:14 PM David Lindelof <lindelof at ieee.org> wrote: > > In summary, I'm convinced R would benefit from something similar to Java's > `Main-Class` header or Python's `__main__()` function. A new R CMD command > would take a package, install its dependencies, and run its "main" > function. I just created and built a very

Ummm oops. Magic pixies? It assumed all of CRAN was installed? Maybe I'll write something that could go in /usr/lib/R/bin/RUN that checks and gets deps, installs the package, and runs package::main, which I think is what the OP wants - you could do R CMD RUN foo_1.0.0.tar.gz and away it goes... B On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:56 PM David Lindelof <lindelof at ieee.org> wrote: > >

To download a package with all its dependencies and install it, use the install.packages() functions instead of 'R CMD INSTALL'. E.g., in bash: mkdir /tmp/libJunk env R_LIBS_SITE=libJunk R --quiet -e 'if (!requireNamespace("purrr",quietly=TRUE)) install.packages("purrr")' For corporate "production use" you probably want to set up your own repository

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]]

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

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

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

Dear David, sharing some related (subjective) thoughts below. On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 9:53 PM David Lindelof <lindelof at ieee.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > > I?m working as a data scientist in a major tech company. I have been using > R for almost 20 years now and there?s one issue that?s been bugging me of > late. I apologize in advance if this has been discussed before.

Sounds interesting. Do you have it on GitHub or similar? Rainer > On 8 Feb 2019, at 09:09, David Lindelof <lindelof at ieee.org> wrote: > > 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

On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 22:09, Gergely Dar?czi <daroczig at rapporter.net> wrote: > > Dear David, sharing some related (subjective) thoughts below. > > You can provide your app as a Docker image, so that the end-user > simply calls a "docker pull" and then "docker run" -- that can be done > from a user-friendly script as well. > Of course, this requires

Would you care to share how your package installs its own dependencies? I assume this is done during the call to `main()`? (Last time I checked, R CMD INSTALL would not install a package's dependencies...) On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 4:38 PM Barry Rowlingson < b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:14 PM David Lindelof <lindelof at ieee.org>

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