Dear Brian, Martin, and Uwe, thanks for your explanations; I have already replied to you in another mail; so I would only like to add some points here.
On Sat, 16 May 2009, Martin Maechler wrote: > On Sat, 16 May 2009, Martin Maechler wrote: > >>>>>>> "UweL" == Uwe Ligges <lig...@statistik.tu-dortmund.de> >>>>>>> on Fri, 15 May 2009 20:48:03 +0200 writes: >> >> [.............] >> >> >> Thank you for clarifying this and once again apologies for >> stirring you >> >> up with something that had been fixed in the mean-time already. >> >> UweL> For R-devel, it is in the svn logs. Since it may change >> again, NEWS is >> UweL> not always edited while things are tested. >> >> well, and if a new feature is introduced, it gets a NEWS entry >> (hopefully), but if the new feature contains bugs, these will be >> fixed of course with*OUT* another NEWS entry. >> >> Indeed, the NEWS apply to (eventually) released versions of R, >> so fixing transient bugs is *never* documented in NEWS. >> >> ... leading us back to what Brian already said: >> >> 'Under development' needs to be taken seriously. > > This was a Windows-only issue, so the final version was reported in the > May 1 entry in src/gnuwin32/CHANGES, not NEWS: > > o Rcmd INSTALL --build in 2.9.0 did not make _bundles_ in the > format install.packages() expected. Touché: I have not been aware of this; and at first glance I would not have seen the connection to the double DESCRIPTION file either; sorry for this. > [When I looked that was missing from the RSS feed for R-devel, so perhaps > another message is to look at the NEWS/CHANGES files directly.] Point taken; see also my other reply to all of you. > As far as I can see from the svn logs, the first attempt at a fix was > on April 25 > and that was changed to the more successful current solution on April > 27 (well over two > weeks ago, _pace_ claims earlier in the thread). Obviously, my fault was not to look into the CHANGES and the svn log files. Actually, looking through the svn logs, I have now spotted the changes in r48400 to have caused the double DESCRIPTION file I was complaining about in my initial posting (in a non-bundle package, btw). This effect must have survived until r48404, the revision that I was using when posting the initial question. So once again: Sorry for taking your time with this unnecessary posting --- hopefully I have learnt my lesson. Best, Peter ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
