On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12-03-24 2:31 PM, Simon Urbanek wrote: >> >> >> On Mar 24, 2012, at 12:43 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: >> >>> On 12-03-24 10:53 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 24.03.2012 06:58, Daniel Nordlund wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Dan Tenenbaum [mailto:dtene...@fhcrc.org] >>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 5:48 PM >>>>>> To: Daniel Nordlund >>>>>> Cc: r-devel@r-project.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Rd] Missing Windows binary for R-2.15RC? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Daniel Nordlund >>>>>> <djnordl...@frontier.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-bounces@r- >>>>>> >>>>>> project.org] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Dan Tenenbaum >>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 12:21 PM >>>>>>>> To: r-devel@r-project.org >>>>>>>> Subject: [Rd] Missing Windows binary for R-2.15RC? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The page >>>>>>>> http://cran.r-project.org/bin/windows/base/rtest.html >>>>>>>> has a link to: >>>>>>>> http://cran.r-project.org/bin/windows/base/R-2.15.0rc-win.exe >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, clicking on that link gives a 404 "Object not found' error. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> FYI. >>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I experienced the same error you did using the link you provided. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, if you use the CRAN mirror hosted by YOUR organization, you >>>>>> can >>>>>> get the file. :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think so: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://cran.fhcrc.org/bin/windows/base/R-2.15.0rc-win.exe >>>>>> >>>>>> gives me a 404 as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I didn't look closely enough at what you were asking for (RC versus >>>>> beta). R-2.15RC may not have been up-loaded yet. However, I just >>>>> downloaded it from the original link that was posted, so it appears to be >>>>> available now. >>>> >>>> >>>> It may have happened that the scripts generated the webpages before the >>>> binary was built and checked (since "beta" became "rc" yesterday). >>> >>> >>> Yes, they need manual tweaking at the conversion, and I did it after the >>> first upload. >>> >>> If this happens again (which is pretty likely), you can manually download >>> the previous version by editing the URL to put in "alpha" in place of >>> "beta", or "beta" in place of "rc". >>> >> >> ... or have a fixed name instead (on OS X we just use 2.15-branch which is >> unambiguous). For the record I find it extremely annoying that even the >> installation target name changes in the installer - I keep having to change >> it to R-2.15 all the time, because I don't see why you would want to have >> alpha/beta/rc/release of the same R version installed in separate >> directories by default - but that may be just me ;). To a lesser degree the >> same applies to patch versions, but since those are released I could see an >> argument for that, even though in practice I think it is not useful either >> (because typically you just want to upgrade and not another copy). > > > I'm neutral about the name changes, but I don't think any of this is enough > of a problem to be worth the time to fix. If someone else wants to do it, > then I'd be happy to let you take over. >
Thanks all of you for looking into this. Bioconductor usually needs the binaries as soon as they are available so if there is a sustainable way to solve this, we'd appreciate it very much. Dan > > Duncan Murdoch > > ______________________________________________ > 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
