Hi, Russ:
As noted by Brian Peterson in a separate email, R-Forge has a
"Revision" number in addition to the version number. For example, the
'fda' package is currently at version 2.2.3 with Rev.: 484 on R-Forge.
Each SVN Commit increments the Rev. number [after a successful build, I
think], but the version number only changes if that change includes a
change in the revision number in the DESCRIPTION. I don't know for
sure, but I assume that the "md5sums" probably changes with each Rev.
If this is NOT correct, I hope someone who knows will clarify this.
Best Wishes,
Spencer
########################
I earlier moved a part of this thread to R-Devel, and got some
replies there.
At least one page on R-Forge says, "We are currently adapting the
R-packages-plugin in order to work together with the new FusionForge
infrastructure. Some services are thus not yet available." I don't know
if R-Forge is accepting new volunteers, but it looks like they could use
help. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to volunteer.
Best Wishes,
Spencer Graves
On 8/26/2010 8:28 AM, R P Herrold wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, Gavin Simpson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 02:30 -0400, David Kane wrote:
How reliable is R-Forge? http://r-forge.r-project.org/
It is down now (for me). Reporting "R-Forge Could Not Connect to
Database: "
late to chime in, so had tossed the first piece. As this relates to
'reliability of R-Forge' in the sense of possible process issues,
rather than availability of the archive, I wanted to 'tag into' this
thread
I 'mirror' r-forge, so I have not seen this ...
One thing I note, mirroring r-forge, and processing 'diffs' netween
successive days, is that the md5sums of some packages regularly change
without version number bumps. From this morning's report in my email:
Thu Aug 26 04:30:01 EDT 2010
--- /tmp/rforge-pre.txt 2010-08-26 04:30:33.000000000 -0400
+++ /tmp/rforge-post.txt 2010-08-26 04:38:03.000000000 -0400
@@ -8,18 +8,18 @@
AquaEnv_1.0-1.tar.gz 615059a5369d1aba149e6142fedffdde
ArvoRe_0.1.6.tar.gz c955ae7c64c4270740172ad2219060ff
BB_2010.7-1.tar.gz 4f85093ab24fac5c0b91539ec6efb8b7
-BCE_2.0.tar.gz 5a3fe3ecabbe2b2e278f6a48fc19d18d
-BIOMOD_1.1-5.tar.gz d2f74f21bc8858844f8d71627fd8e687
+BCE_2.0.tar.gz 65a968c586e729a1c1ca34a37f5c293a
+BIOMOD_1.1-5.tar.gz 6929e5ad6a14709de7065286ec684942
...
-BTSPAS_2010.08.tar.gz 16b8f265846a512c329f0b52ba1924ab
+BTSPAS_2010.08.tar.gz 809a96b11f1094e95b217af113abd0ac
...
-BayesR_0.1-1.tar.gz 72bd41c90845032eb9d15c4c6d086dec
+BayesFactorPCL_0.5.tar.gz 173ab741c399309314eff240a4c3cd6f
+BayesR_0.1-1.tar.gz 9560b511f1b955a60529599672d58fea
...
-BiplotGUI_0.0-6.tar.gz 594b3a275cde018eaa74e1ef974dd522
+BiplotGUI_0.0-6.tar.gz 857a484fdba6cb97be4e42e38bb6d0fd
...
-IsoGene_1.0-18.tar.gz 679a5aecb7182474ed6a870fa52ca2e3
+IsoGene_1.0-18.tar.gz f37572957b2a9846a8d738ec88ac8690
and so forth. I've not taken the trime to understand why seemingly
new versions are appearing without version bumps yet.
Is anyone aware of explanations, other than a release process that
does not require unique versioning of differing content? [it seems
pretty basic to me that a 'receiver' of new content could do the
checks I do, and decline to push conflicting md5sums over an
identically named prior candidate in archive]
-- Russ herrold
______________________________________________
r-h...@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide
http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
--
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Operating Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San José, CA 95126
ph: 408-655-4567
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
