Re: [Rd] simplifying number of R installations on disk
I think it's a very bad idea to truncate version numbers. Version numbers are important, and there may be a critical difference x.y.0 and x.y.1. Plus there is no guarantee that the updated version is better than the previous one. Hence a programmer may need to go back to x.y.0 until x.y.2 is released. Perhaps there should be an option somewhere to remove existing installations (maybe there is), however by default, installing a new version of a programming language, should not uninstall existing versions. -- Charlotte Maia Open Source Developer and Statistician http://sites.google.com/site/maiagx __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] simplifying number of R installations on disk
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Charlotte Maia mai...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's a very bad idea to truncate version numbers. Version numbers are important, and there may be a critical difference x.y.0 and x.y.1. Plus there is no guarantee that the updated version is better than the previous one. Hence a programmer may need to go back to x.y.0 until x.y.2 is released. Perhaps there should be an option somewhere to remove existing installations (maybe there is), however by default, installing a new version of a programming language, should not uninstall existing versions. A new version of R comes out almost daily or weekly. I don't think many would want to create a separate R directory daily or weekly so there has to be some sensible cutoff somewhere. In particular, its important to distinguish 1st and 2nd level versions with 3rd level versions. I would agree with you for 1st and 2nd level versions but not for 3rd level versions which is what is being discussed here. 3rd level versions - don't have critical differences and - you virtually never have to go back since third level versions are basically bug fixes so I don't think such arguments apply. The fact that one bug fix can generate another bug is more theoretical than a real problem that is encountered. If you did want to go back there is nothing to prevent you from downloading the old version again (although in years of following this scheme I have never had to do it) or using the last 2nd level version. Also if you don't like the whole scheme its only a default, not an operating requirement, so for those few people who want a separate installation for every third level version they could still have it just as anyone can implement the proposed scheme even in the absence making it the default; however, for most people I think that generating a large number of alpha, beta, pat, *.0, *.1 directories is pointless since they will never use anything other than the most recent in any x.y.* series. __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] simplifying number of R installations on disk
Note that there is a batch file Rgui.bat, etc. here: http://batchfiles.googlecode.com that will find R in the Windows registry and then run Rgui.exe so that you don't need to change any paths each time you do an install. There is also a command, Rversions.hta, that will display which versions of R you have and set whichever you wish to be the current version. R already uses the scheme that I mentioned for libraries (i.e. it creates a new library when x or y in x.y.z changes but not when z changes so I find it convenient to just stick to its default in that case The batchfiles collection also has utilities for moving and copying libraries as well as notes on other ways to do it and also a variety of other R-related batch files for Windows. On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel e...@debian.org wrote: Moreover, one may want to script use of R. And while I use R a lot more on non-Windows systems I do have helper and convenience scripts, PATH settings etc to create packages on Windows. For that I find it a PITA to have to adjust things on each upgrade --- and hence some time ago I stopped accepting the defaults and started to install R into C:/opt/R/R-current/ and treat that as a fixed path. I find this makes my life on Windows easier -- and yes, R_LIBS is also set to a fixed path. Dirk -- Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions. __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
[Rd] simplifying number of R installations on disk
If R-2.10.0 were the current version of R then by default there will be an R-2.10.0 directory on your machine and when R-2.10.1 comes along a new directory R-2-10.1 will be created if you use the installation defaults. I normally don't use the defaults but rather put all R-2.10.* versions in the same directory so that R-2.10.1 overwrites R-2.10.0; however, if the first or second number in the version change then I do use a new directory. Also I put any alpha or beta versions of R-2.10 in R-2.10 again overwriting any prior R-2.10 version. Actually this is already how it works for win-library. That is, R automatically generates a win-library\2.9, a win-library\2.10 but there will not be automatically generated separate libraries for the third level version number or for alpha or beta versions. I think it would make more sense for the installation procedure of R itself to use the same scheme that win-library uses since otherwise there is an accumulation of too many directories as R changes. It should still be possible to have the current scheme for those who wish to retain it but I doubt that most people really want to keep separate third level versions separately so it would not be the default; instead, a scheme that produces R-2.10, R-2.11, etc. R directories would be the default. __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
