You should be capable of building R on Windows from the SVN sources or
daily source tarballs.
After all, when (as often happens) BioC has an inconsistent set of
source or binaries (like released packages depending on unreleased
packages, on unreleased versions), the BioC core team tell me to get the
sources from your SVN.
On 27/03/2012 17:48, Dan Tenenbaum wrote:
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
--
Brian D. Ripley, rip...@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
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
