Hi all, Perhaps my memory from 1.9.0 is gone and I need to be taking more Ginko/Ginseng.... The current R patched tarballs and diff file (ftp://ftp.stat.math.ethz.ch/Software/R/R-release.diff.gz) appear to be for 1.9.1 as opposed to 2.0.0 if my read of the files is correct. The current devel tarballs are labelled with a version of 2.1.0. Makes sense. If the R patched tarballs and diff file are for 1.9.1, are patches actually being applied to 1.9.1 or are these files simply being auto-made as the result of a daily script against the 1.9.1 subversion repository? Is there indeed any tarball/diff file for the 2.0.0 patched version? I have been trying to avoid using subversion (given past discussions) and downloading tarballs when I need to update my working version. Thanks and feel free to smack some sense into me... Marc
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Marc Schwartz wrote:> Hi all, > > Perhaps my memory from 1.9.0 is gone and I need to be taking more > Ginko/Ginseng.... > > The current R patched tarballs and diff file > (ftp://ftp.stat.math.ethz.ch/Software/R/R-release.diff.gz) appear to be > for 1.9.1 as opposed to 2.0.0 if my read of the files is correct.Correct.> The current devel tarballs are labelled with a version of 2.1.0. Makes > sense. > > If the R patched tarballs and diff file are for 1.9.1, are patches > actually being applied to 1.9.1 or are these files simply being > auto-made as the result of a daily script against the 1.9.1 subversion > repository?The latter. They should be ignored until Martin Maechler is able to create the correct ones.> Is there indeed any tarball/diff file for the 2.0.0 patched version?No.> I have been trying to avoid using subversion (given past discussions) > and downloading tarballs when I need to update my working version.The only way to get R-patched from the R-2-0-patches branch is by svn co https://svn.r-project/R/branches/R-2-0-patches. But be prepared to be patient, as it had not completed for me in 2 hours this morning. Also, as the date-stamp is not being updated, it will report the wrong date. I suggest ignoring R-patched for now. All the patches are in R-devel, and only a very small number of other things. -- Brian D. Ripley, ripley@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 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595
On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 11:53, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Marc Schwartz wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Perhaps my memory from 1.9.0 is gone and I need to be taking more > > Ginko/Ginseng.... > > > > The current R patched tarballs and diff file > > (ftp://ftp.stat.math.ethz.ch/Software/R/R-release.diff.gz) appear to be > > for 1.9.1 as opposed to 2.0.0 if my read of the files is correct. > > Correct. > > > The current devel tarballs are labelled with a version of 2.1.0. Makes > > sense. > > > > If the R patched tarballs and diff file are for 1.9.1, are patches > > actually being applied to 1.9.1 or are these files simply being > > auto-made as the result of a daily script against the 1.9.1 subversion > > repository? > > The latter. They should be ignored until Martin Maechler is able to create > the correct ones. > > > Is there indeed any tarball/diff file for the 2.0.0 patched version? > > No. > > > I have been trying to avoid using subversion (given past discussions) > > and downloading tarballs when I need to update my working version. > > The only way to get R-patched from the R-2-0-patches branch is by > svn co https://svn.r-project/R/branches/R-2-0-patches. But be prepared to > be patient, as it had not completed for me in 2 hours this morning. > Also, as the date-stamp is not being updated, it will report the wrong > date. > > I suggest ignoring R-patched for now. All the patches are in R-devel, and > only a very small number of other things.Prof. Ripley, Thanks for the clarifications! Best regards, Marc
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:29:18 -0500, Marc Schwartz <MSchwartz@MedAnalytics.com> wrote :>Hi all, > >Perhaps my memory from 1.9.0 is gone and I need to be taking more >Ginko/Ginseng.... > >The current R patched tarballs and diff file >(ftp://ftp.stat.math.ethz.ch/Software/R/R-release.diff.gz) appear to be >for 1.9.1 as opposed to 2.0.0 if my read of the files is correct. > >The current devel tarballs are labelled with a version of 2.1.0. Makes >sense. > >If the R patched tarballs and diff file are for 1.9.1, are patches >actually being applied to 1.9.1 or are these files simply being >auto-made as the result of a daily script against the 1.9.1 subversion >repository? > >Is there indeed any tarball/diff file for the 2.0.0 patched version?As Brian Ripley pointed out, the answer is no. However, others might want to know that I have been building Windows binaries from the repository, and those will be available every few days on CRAN (see http://cran.r-project.org/bin/windows/base/rpatched.html). Duncan Murdoch