Re: [Rd] Problems with install.packages when Ncpus > 1

From: Winston Chang <winstonchang1_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 11:02:18 -0500

>> In the code for install.packages, I see that if Ncpus>1, it passes the
>> Ncpus to make, as in 'make -k -j 32'. Is it possible that these
>> packages are failing because of this option to make?
>
>
> It is perfectly correct option: please do your homework before posting as the posting guide asked of you.

The question isn't about whether these are valid make options. I realize that '-j <n>' is a valid option for make, just like Ncpus is a valid option for install.packages. The question is whether that option is unexpectedly resulting in failed compiles for some packages.

>>
>> Has anyone else run into this issue before?
>
>
> Yes. It is due to missing dependencies between packages. I find this works well on CRAN *provided* that the BioC repositories are also selected so that dependencies can be traced via BioC dependencies. However, BioC does have a fair few missing dependencies in its packages (run R CMD check over BioC to see them).
>
> Take a look at the logs of the failed packages. One I see frequently is that ddgraph fails because it depends indirectly on RBGL which takes a long time to install and is still being done.

Thanks, I'll take a closer look at these those cross dependencies.

-Winston



R-devel_at_r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel Received on Sat 06 Oct 2012 - 16:05:35 GMT

This quarter's messages: by month, or sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

All messages

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Sun 07 Oct 2012 - 15:40:45 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel. Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive