Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> On 9/10/05, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/9/05, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've just committed some changes to allow R to be built and to use
>>>>MikTeX without needing the Rd.sty files to be installed to localtexmf.
>>>>Unfortunately, the changes are not compatible with other TeX packages,
>>>>so if you're not using MikTeX you'll need to edit a couple of the config
>>>>files (or set an environment variable).
>>>>
>>>>I'd appreciate hearing of any problems during the alpha or beta test period.
>>>>
>>>>A binary build containing the changes should be on CRAN tomorrow or the
>>>>next day. Look for revision 35546 or higher.
>>>
>>>
>>>Note that R.version.string in R 2.2.0 2005-09-03 does not give
>>>this sort of version information. If we are going to use this style
>>>I suggest we modify R.version.string accordingly.
>>
>>You can get the revision number from the startup banner if you download
>>a binary build.
>>
>>Duncan Murdoch
>>
>>
>
>
> I normally document what version I am using by displaying R.version.string.
> If R.version.string is no longer definitive
^^^^^^^^^
It never was for non-released versions checked out from svn (or cvs in
the older days) ...
Uwe Ligges
> under 2.2.0 then it either needs to
> be modified so that it is or we need some other way of getting that
> capability.
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
