Hin-Tak Leung <htl10 <at> users.sourceforge.net> writes: > > --- On Fri, 15/2/13, Simon Urbanek <simon.urbanek <at> r-project.org> wrote: > > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 1:55 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: > > > > > Look. I don't see this as "my" problem - as far as I am > > concerned, I have donated my time - and over and over - to > > testing pre-released code. I am not using pre-released code > > for production work. If the released code in 3.0 does not > > work correctly in 6 weeks' time, I just don't upgrade. No > > loss for me there. > > > > > > > It works - confirmed by several people. You have a problem, > > but you didn't tell us the specifics of the problem so > > there's nothing we can do. > > I do not have a problem. I do not need to spend time regularly testing pre-release code, and I think I should stop.
The probably unknown now, for today's comfortable people, simple procedure has always been: svn up tools/rsync-recommended # R only ./configure ... make distclean ./configure ... make make check # R or relevant software only make install which always works even when building in the source tree. This whole thread is unnecessary if you remember to run make distclean, as all files that might appear to be fresh (but are not because of indirect dependencies, such as changes in the methods package), are rebuilt. When in doubt, use make distclean. It's as easy as that, nothing to get excited about. Section 7.2.6 of http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/index.html. Roger > > > > I don't know why it is degenerating into another > > distraction about some people's egos. > > > > > > > I don't either - it's not productive. > > > > Cheers, > > Simon > > > > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
