There does not seem to be a RPM for Red Hat 7 of version 1.2.1. What should I do? I have a new computer with RH7. I''m willing to try to make one from the SRPM, but I''ve never done that before, and I don''t want to go to the trouble if someone else is already planning to do it soon. Likewise, I could install it from the tgz file. (I just did that on a Solaris server, so I ought to be able to do it on my new computer.) But if I do that, and then I want to update next time from an RPM, how do I know I''m putting things where they ought to go (when I use the tgz file), so I don''t wind up with two versions at some later time? I did try the RPM for RH 6 and it didn''t work on RH 7 (although it worked fine on my RH 6 computer). Jon Baron -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Jonathan Baron wrote:> There does not seem to be a RPM for Red Hat 7 of version 1.2.1. > What should I do? I have a new computer with RH7.The easiest thing to do is to install from source. You will need to up/downgrade your gcc, though. The notorious "gcc 2.96" supplied with RH7 causes a number of problems with R. Installing from source will mean you want to uninstall before installing an RPM, should one become available. -thomas Thomas Lumley Asst. Professor, Biostatistics tlumley at u.washington.edu University of Washington, Seattle -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
>>>>> "TL" == Thomas Lumley <thomas at biostat.washington.edu> writes:TL> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Jonathan Baron wrote: >> There does not seem to be a RPM for Red Hat 7 of version 1.2.1. >> What should I do? I have a new computer with RH7. TL> The easiest thing to do is to install from source. You will TL> need to up/downgrade your gcc, though. The notorious "gcc TL> 2.96" supplied with RH7 causes a number of problems with R. The hard thing to do is to "upgrade" from RH 7.0 to Debian''s "testing" distribution, add CRAN''s Debian archive to the list of sources, and use Doug Bates'' build... :-) best, -tony -- A.J. Rossini Rsrch. Asst. Prof. of Biostatistics UW Biostat/Center for AIDS Research rossini at u.washington.edu FHCRC/SCHARP/HIV Vaccine Trials Net rossini at scharp.org -------- (friday is unknown) -------- FHCRC: M--W : 206-667-7025 (fax=4812)|Voicemail is pretty sketchy CFAR: ?? : 206-731-3647 (fax=3694)|Email is far better than phone UW: Th : 206-543-1044 (fax=3286)|Change last 4 digits of phone to FAX -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
Thomas Lumley <thomas at biostat.washington.edu> writes:> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Jonathan Baron wrote: > > > There does not seem to be a RPM for Red Hat 7 of version 1.2.1. > > What should I do? I have a new computer with RH7. > > The easiest thing to do is to install from source. You will need to > up/downgrade your gcc, though. The notorious "gcc 2.96" supplied with RH7 > causes a number of problems with R. > > Installing from source will mean you want to uninstall before installing > an RPM, should one become available.Notice that there are RPMs of 1.1.1 for RH7.0 in the updates section at RedHat, and of 1.2.0 in the rawhide distribution. Both were made after the (known) remaing issues with 2.96 was fixed and errataed. (The latter is dated Dec 19 with the release of 1.2.0 on Dec 15, but I wouldn''t expect you to be that lucky this time). If you build from source, you *must* get the current update for gcc 2.96. Besides, what''s wrong with Martyn''s version sitting at http://cran.r-project.org/bin/linux/redhat/7.x/i386/R-base-1.2.1-1.i386.rpm ???..... [Yeah, I only went to look *after* writing the first bit] -- O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3 c/ /''_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
On 20-Jan-01 Jonathan Baron wrote:> There does not seem to be a RPM for Red Hat 7 of version 1.2.1. > What should I do? I have a new computer with RH7.It''s there now. In fact it was available from ftp://ftp-fis.iarc.fr/pub/R from Friday, but I suppose it had not been mirrored to CRAN when you looked. I am supporting RH6.2 and RH7.0 at the moment, but RH7.0 takes a little longer because I do it at home. Martyn -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Jonathan Baron wrote: > >> There does not seem to be a RPM for Red Hat 7 of version 1.2.1. >> What should I do? I have a new computer with RH7. > > The easiest thing to do is to install from source. You will need to > up/downgrade your gcc, though. The notorious "gcc 2.96" supplied withRH7> causes a number of problems with R. > > Installing from source will mean you want to uninstall before installing > an RPM, should one become available. > > > -thomas > > Thomas Lumley Asst. Professor, Biostatistics > tlumley at u.washington.edu University of Washington, Seattle >The gcc-2.96 compiler has actually been fixed a couple of months ago. The current RPM version is 2.96-69. I am not trying to defend RH for including an "experimental" compiler in their 7.0 release but, as a matter of fairness, I have to point out that they did a very good job with the update. I compiled 1.2.1 with it with no problems whatsoever. I ran all the tests with no errors and all the packages I tried to compile so far work fine. This is a little off the subject, but the updated 2-.96 compiler also compiles Linux kernel 2.4.0 with no problems. Cheers, Andy -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 apjaworski at mmm.com wrote:> > > On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Jonathan Baron wrote: > > > >> There does not seem to be a RPM for Red Hat 7 of version 1.2.1. > >> What should I do? I have a new computer with RH7. > > > > The easiest thing to do is to install from source. You will need to > > up/downgrade your gcc, though. The notorious "gcc 2.96" supplied with > RH7 > > causes a number of problems with R. > > > > Installing from source will mean you want to uninstall before installing > > an RPM, should one become available. > > > > > > -thomas > > > > Thomas Lumley Asst. Professor, Biostatistics > > tlumley at u.washington.edu University of Washington, Seattle > > > The gcc-2.96 compiler has actually been fixed a couple of months ago. The > current RPM version is 2.96-69. > > I am not trying to defend RH for including an "experimental" compiler in > their 7.0 release but, as a matter of fairness, I have to point out that > they did a very good job with the update. I compiled 1.2.1 with it with no > problems whatsoever. I ran all the tests with no errors and all the > packages I tried to compile so far work fine. > > This is a little off the subject, but the updated 2-.96 compiler also > compiles Linux kernel 2.4.0 with no problems.But, see http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html for what the gcc developers recommend. -- Brian D. Ripley, ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272860 (secr) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
apjaworski at mmm.com said:> The gcc-2.96 compiler has actually been fixed a couple of months ago. > The current RPM version is 2.96-69.What about RH g77? It used to produce broken shared libraries which segfaulted R, back in the official Gnu compiler collection in RH6.x series. Is that fixed in gcc-"2.96" of RH 7? (That is, should I upgrade to RH7 although I first thought it is better to stay far away from RH7.0 and gcc-"2.96"). cheers, jo -- Jari Oksanen -- Dept Biology, Univ Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland Ph. +358 8 5531526 (job), mobile +358 40 5136529 email jari.oksanen at oulu.fi, homepage http://cc.oulu.fi/~jarioksa/ -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Jari Oksanen wrote:> > apjaworski at mmm.com said: > > The gcc-2.96 compiler has actually been fixed a couple of months ago. > > The current RPM version is 2.96-69. > > What about RH g77? It used to produce broken shared libraries which segfaulted > R, back in the official Gnu compiler collection in RH6.x series. Is that fixedThey never had an official GNU compiler in RH6.x: they had egcs. gcc 2.95.2 has been the gcc/g77 compiler of choice for a long time, and according to gcc.gnu.org still is. That''s what I have been using for 18 months, and I believe what Martyn Plummer uses for his RH6.2 RPMs (although at some point he mentions 2.95.1). -- Brian D. Ripley, ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272860 (secr) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
>> apjaworski at mmm.com said: >> The gcc-2.96 compiler has actually been fixed a couple of months ago. >> The current RPM version is 2.96-69. > > What about RH g77? It used to produce broken shared libraries whichsegfaulted> R, back in the official Gnu compiler collection in RH6.x series. Is thatfixed> in gcc-"2.96" of RH 7? (That is, should I upgrade to RH7 although I first > thought it is better to stay far away from RH7.0 and gcc-"2.96"). > > cheers, jo > -- > Jari Oksanen -- Dept Biology, Univ Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland > Ph. +358 8 5531526 (job), mobile +358 40 5136529 > email jari.oksanen at oulu.fi, homepage http://cc.oulu.fi/~jarioksa/ >Here is what the compiler update installed/updated on my machine. libstdc++-2.96-69 gcc-c++-2.96-69 cpp-2.96-69 gcc-2.96-69 libstdc++-devel-2.96-69 gcc-objc-2.96-69 gcc-g77-2.96-69 The g77 is there but I do not know what the changes to it were. All I know is that on my Linux box (266MHz Pentium MMX, generic MB and video card) this compiler compiled the whole R-1.2.1 distribution with no problems. (This included the g77 compilations.) All tests passed. I could also compile and check several packages. Moreover, I could compile the Matrix package with no problems, whereas I had problems with it using gcc-2.95.2 As Prof. Ripley remarked, the gcc-2.96 compiler suite is not an official release. The 2.95.2 is recommended for production work. The 2.96 version is reported to have problems with C++ code but I could not verify that these problems were fixed in the upgrade. Again, I know that I can compile, for example, the whole QT-2.2.2 tutorial without a single warning, but this of course does not prove anything. Cheers, Andy -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
apjaworski at mmm.com writes:> As Prof. Ripley remarked, the gcc-2.96 compiler suite is not an official > release. The 2.95.2 is recommended for production work. The 2.96 version > is reported to have problems with C++ code but I could not verify that > these problems were fixed in the upgrade. Again, I know that I can > compile, for example, the whole QT-2.2.2 tutorial without a single warning, > but this of course does not prove anything.Yup. Even though Brian (and many otheres with him) is right that RedHat pulled a terrible stunt with this compiler-"release", they seem to have landed the thing on its feet, not least due to very bright people like Jakub Jelinek who have been handling the reports of compiler bugs we triggered entirely sensibly. (I still remember the bug in the "cb" C beautifier program which could turn 1e-6 into 1e - 6 which the complier parsed as 1 - 6 = -5. I reported that one to HP only to find it again years later in Solaris based on the same codebase...) -- O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3 c/ /''_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
On 23-Jan-01 Peter Dalgaard BSA wrote:> > Yup. Even though Brian (and many otheres with him) is right that > RedHat pulled a terrible stunt with this compiler-"release", they seem > to have landed the thing on its feet, not least due to very bright > people like Jakub Jelinek who have been handling the reports of > compiler bugs we triggered entirely sensibly.This is a little off-topic but I would like to say my piece. I would like to echo Peter''s praise of Jakub, who has not only been very efficient in fixing these bugs but also remained polite and calm in the face of considerable hostility. Don''t forget that a lot of ordinary users (myself included) had to track down these bugs and submit short test programs that Jakub could work with. Most, if not all, of these users would not normally choose to use such bleeding-edge software, and there has consequently been a loss of good will. This is the heart of the problem: Red Hat broke one of the many rules of etiquette in the open source community by releasing gcc 2.96. Only the gcc development team is responsible for deciding when gcc is ready for general use, and the same is true for all the other components of a GNU/Linux system. If Red Hat don''t respect this then they will lose their user base. If I may speculate on the reasons why Red Hat pulled this trick, I suspect that they switched the development version of their distribution to gcc 2.96 thinking that it would have stabilized to gcc 3.0 by the time Red Hat 7.0 was released. But they were wrong (Current estimate for gcc 3.0 is end Q1 2001). The need to generate some revenue from distribution sales forced them to release 7.0, rather than wait. This is pure speculation of course, but it is a scenario that makes them appear rational, if somewhat optimistic. Finally I should point out that gcc 2.96 still doesn''t compile R correctly on alpha. Martyn -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._