I've recently installed Ubuntu 5.10 on a desktop and need R installed,
however, even after uncommenting the repos associated with universe,
backports and multiverse, the packages available for Ubuntu are somewhat
out of date:
clint at simba:~$ apt-cache policy r-base r-base-core
r-base:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 2.1.1-1
Version table:
2.1.1-1 0
500 http://archive.ubuntu.com breezy/universe Packages
r-base-core:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 2.1.1-1
Version table:
2.1.1-1 0
500 http://archive.ubuntu.com breezy/universe Packages
How should I edit my /etc/apt/sources.list so that I can proplery
maintain a current version of R, and not break my system? I've searched
the forums at Ubuntu, and there are several similar requests there, but
no definitive answer that I found.
What are other Ubuntu users here doing to keep their version of R fresh?
Thanks,
Clint
--
Clint Harshaw, PhD Email: charshaw at presby.edu
Department of Mathematics Ph: 864.833.8995
Presbyterian College Fax: 864.938.3769
Clinton, SC USA 29325 Harrington-Peachtree Rm 412
Clint Harshaw wrote:>I've recently installed Ubuntu 5.10 on a desktop and need R installed, >however, even after uncommenting the repos associated with universe, >backports and multiverse, the packages available for Ubuntu are somewhat >out of date: > >clint at simba:~$ apt-cache policy r-base r-base-core >r-base: > Installed: (none) > Candidate: 2.1.1-1 > Version table: > 2.1.1-1 0 > 500 http://archive.ubuntu.com breezy/universe Packages >r-base-core: > Installed: (none) > Candidate: 2.1.1-1 > Version table: > 2.1.1-1 0 > 500 http://archive.ubuntu.com breezy/universe Packages > >How should I edit my /etc/apt/sources.list so that I can proplery >maintain a current version of R, and not break my system? I've searched >the forums at Ubuntu, and there are several similar requests there, but >no definitive answer that I found. > >What are other Ubuntu users here doing to keep their version of R fresh? > >Thanks, >Clint > >Hi, there is no up-to-date R package for Breezy. I have no problem with source installation; just follow the instructions and that's all. If you prefer package installation, try with checkinstall. Cheers, Andrej
You could try the stable/sarge backport from Cran. That's less likely
to cause problems than using the Etch version, but I'm not using Ubuntu
so I can't confirm this. Add the following to your sources.list and see
how it goes:
deb http://cran.R-project.org/bin/linux/debian stable/
--
Tyler Smith
Hi All, An annoying but not critical problem I am having is that the variance of a vector of constants is reported as > 0. I imagine there is a simple workaround for the following but could not find it after having spent an embarrassing amount of time. In Splus:> x<-rep(0.02,10) > var(x) > 0In R: x<-rep(0.02,10) var(x) 1.337451e-35 I assumed the problem had to do with machine precision and suitably modified .Machine$double.eps and .Machine$double.neg.eps which I thought would fix the problem but without success. Any pointers to a solution would be appreciated! Cheers, Barry Zajdlik
On Thursday 16 February 2006 11:29, Barry Zajdlik wrote:> 1.337451e-35Well, its nearly zero ;-) JD
Barry Zajdlik wrote:> Hi All, > > An annoying but not critical problem I am having is that the variance of > a vector of constants is reported as > 0. I imagine there is a simple > workaround for the following but could not find it after having spent an > embarrassing amount of time. > > In Splus: > > >>x<-rep(0.02,10) >>var(x) >>0 > > > In R: > > x<-rep(0.02,10) > var(x) > 1.337451e-35Which version of R and which OS is this? I get 0 for both Linux and Windows with R-2.2.1. Anyway, 0.02 is not well representable and hence can be very well the cause for such a numerical inaccuracy.> I assumed the problem had to do with machine precision and suitably > modified .Machine$double.eps and .Machine$double.neg.eps which I thought > would fix the problem but without success. Any pointers to a solution > would be appreciated!Changing .Machine$double.eps does not help to calculate more accurate ... Uwe Ligges> Cheers, > Barry Zajdlik > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
This looks like the known problem, PR#1228. It is possible to do better, but really users should be aware that numerical inaccuracies will occur, and not expect exact results from floating-point calculations. On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Uwe Ligges wrote:> Barry Zajdlik wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> An annoying but not critical problem I am having is that the variance of >> a vector of constants is reported as > 0. I imagine there is a simple >> workaround for the following but could not find it after having spent an >> embarrassing amount of time. >> >> In Splus: >> >> >>> x<-rep(0.02,10) >>> var(x) >>> 0 >> >> >> In R: >> >> x<-rep(0.02,10) >> var(x) >> 1.337451e-35 > > > Which version of R and which OS is this? I get 0 for both Linux and > Windows with R-2.2.1. > Anyway, 0.02 is not well representable and hence can be very well the > cause for such a numerical inaccuracy. > >> I assumed the problem had to do with machine precision and suitably >> modified .Machine$double.eps and .Machine$double.neg.eps which I thought >> would fix the problem but without success. Any pointers to a solution >> would be appreciated! > > Changing .Machine$double.eps does not help to calculate more accurate ... > > Uwe Ligges > > >> Cheers, >> Barry Zajdlik >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help >> PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html >-- 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 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595
On 2/16/06, Clint Harshaw <charshaw at presby.edu> wrote:> I've recently installed Ubuntu 5.10 on a desktop and need R installed, > however, even after uncommenting the repos associated with universe, > backports and multiverse, the packages available for Ubuntu are somewhat > out of date: > > clint at simba:~$ apt-cache policy r-base r-base-core > r-base: > Installed: (none) > Candidate: 2.1.1-1 > Version table: > 2.1.1-1 0 > 500 http://archive.ubuntu.com breezy/universe Packages > r-base-core: > Installed: (none) > Candidate: 2.1.1-1 > Version table: > 2.1.1-1 0 > 500 http://archive.ubuntu.com breezy/universe Packages > > How should I edit my /etc/apt/sources.list so that I can proplery > maintain a current version of R, and not break my system? I've searched > the forums at Ubuntu, and there are several similar requests there, but > no definitive answer that I found. > > What are other Ubuntu users here doing to keep their version of R fresh?I suspect the 2.2.x packages from Debian testing and/or unstable would run fine on breezy (I don't think there's been any libc6 changes that would affect things); you could always rebuild from the Debianized sources for Ubuntu if they don't. You could use apt pins to make sure that only the R packages from Debian are pulled in, if you want to use apt to keep it up to date from Debian's archive. Something like the following in /etc/apt/preferences should work: Package: r-* Pin: release o=Debian Pin-Priority: 500 Package: * Pin: release o=Debian Pin-Priority: -1 Then add a line for the Debian mirror of your choice to /etc/apt/sources.list, using either testing or unstable as your release. Chris
On 16 Feb 2006, at 23:17, Uwe Ligges wrote:> Barry Zajdlik wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> An annoying but not critical problem I am having is that the variance >> of >> a vector of constants is reported as > 0. I imagine there is a simple >> workaround for the following but could not find it after having spent >> an >> embarrassing amount of time. >> >> In Splus: >> >> >>> x<-rep(0.02,10) >>> var(x) >>> 0 >> >> >> In R: >> >> x<-rep(0.02,10) >> var(x) >> 1.337451e-35 > > > Which version of R and which OS is this? I get 0 for both Linux and > Windows with R-2.2.1. > Anyway, 0.02 is not well representable and hence can be very well the > cause for such a numerical inaccuracy. > >> I assumed the problem had to do with machine precision and suitably >> modified .Machine$double.eps and .Machine$double.neg.eps which I >> thought >> would fix the problem but without success. Any pointers to a solution >> would be appreciated! > > Changing .Machine$double.eps does not help to calculate more accurate > ... > > Uwe Ligges > > >> Cheers, >> Barry Zajdlik >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help >> PLEASE do read the posting guide! >> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide! > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html >-- Jari Oksanen, Oulu, Finland