On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 12:41 +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Martyn Plummer wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 17:07 -0500, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 23:52 +0200, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> >>> Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>
> On Fri,
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 15:23 +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Marc Schwartz wrote:
>
> >> From what I can tell, there is only one reason that the FC-E R RPM is
> > available as a shared library:
> >
> > Tom had made the gnomeGUI CRAN package available as an RPM in FC-E,
> > wh
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Marc Schwartz wrote:
>> From what I can tell, there is only one reason that the FC-E R RPM is
> available as a shared library:
>
> Tom had made the gnomeGUI CRAN package available as an RPM in FC-E,
> which of course requires the above:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/extras/4/i3
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 12:41 +0200, Martyn Plummer wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 17:07 -0500, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 23:52 +0200, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> > > Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 14:57 +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
Martyn Plummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 17:07 -0500, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 23:52 +0200, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> > > Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 14:57 +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> > > > > On
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Martyn Plummer wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 17:07 -0500, Marc Schwartz wrote:
>> On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 23:52 +0200, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
>>> Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 14:57 +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 17:07 -0500, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 23:52 +0200, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> > Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 14:57 +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 07:51 +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> Our preference is F77 compilers over F9x ones, as the lists Simon showed
> reflects - we decided to prefer F95 to F90 in future, though.
>
> My experience is that g77 from gcc-3.4.x is preferable to gfortran.
> As I said earlier, once
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 23:08 -0500, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> In reviewing the Add/Remove Application GUI, gfortran is listed as an
> "Extra Package" in the Development Tools Group.
>
> g77 is not listed in that Group or in the Legacy Development Group, so
> it would appear that it is a "silent" pa
Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 00:01 +0200, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> > Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Prof. Ripley,
> > >
> > > If my read of the config.log is correct, it would appear that g77 was
> > > used and not gfortran (which is insta
Our preference is F77 compilers over F9x ones, as the lists Simon showed
reflects - we decided to prefer F95 to F90 in future, though.
My experience is that g77 from gcc-3.4.x is preferable to gfortran.
As I said earlier, once gcc-4.0.1 is released (and so R builds with a
released version of gcc
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 22:42 -0400, Simon Urbanek wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2005, at 6:16 PM, Marc Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Interesting. Did you do anything different on the ./configure line?
> >
> > $ ls -l /usr/bin/f95
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 Jun 13 21:18 /usr/bin/f95 -> gfortran
> >
> > I just tri
For completeness, I also just tried the R 2.1.1 snapshot from yesterday with
gcc-4.0, g++-4.0 and gfortran-4.0 in an up-to-date Debian unstable chroot --
no issues to report from the build and regression test.
Haven't run that version as I currently do not have a system running
unstable, though.
On Jun 14, 2005, at 6:16 PM, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> Interesting. Did you do anything different on the ./configure line?
>
> $ ls -l /usr/bin/f95
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 Jun 13 21:18 /usr/bin/f95 -> gfortran
>
> I just tried it again (having installed some FC updates) and I
> still get g77..
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 00:01 +0200, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Prof. Ripley,
> >
> > If my read of the config.log is correct, it would appear that g77 was
> > used and not gfortran (which is installed):
> >
> > ...
> > C compiler:gcc
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 23:52 +0200, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 14:57 +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> > >
> > > > The next version of R will be released (barring force majeure) on J
Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Prof. Ripley,
>
> If my read of the config.log is correct, it would appear that g77 was
> used and not gfortran (which is installed):
>
> ...
> C compiler:gcc -g -O2
> C++ compiler: g++ -g -O2
> Fortran compiler:
Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 14:57 +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> >
> > > The next version of R will be released (barring force majeure) on June
> > > 20th, with beta versions available starting Monday.
> > >
>
Prof. Ripley,
If my read of the config.log is correct, it would appear that g77 was
used and not gfortran (which is installed):
...
C compiler:gcc -g -O2
C++ compiler: g++ -g -O2
Fortran compiler: g77 -g -O2
...
$ g77 --version
GNU Fortran (GCC 3.2
Marc,
Thanks for the confirmation. Is this using gfortran too? A date of
20050519 should be after the show-stopper bug was fixed, but I am waiting
for 4.0.1 to be released (imminent) before doing more tests with gcc4.
Brian
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 14
On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 14:57 +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
>
> > The next version of R will be released (barring force majeure) on June
> > 20th, with beta versions available starting Monday.
> >
> > Please do check them on your system *before* the rel
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Question: I just downloaded the daily Windows build of "R-devel" and it
> claims to be a pre-release of R 2.2.0. So ... is the next release 2.1.1
> or 2.2.0? Or is there just not a readily-available Windows build of 2.1.1?
R-devel is the development version for R-2.
Question: I just downloaded the daily Windows build of "R-devel" and it
claims to be a pre-release of R 2.2.0. So ... is the next release 2.1.1
or 2.2.0? Or is there just not a readily-available Windows build of 2.1.1?
Peter Dalgaard wrote:
>The next version of R will be released (barring force m
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> The next version of R will be released (barring force majeure) on June
> 20th, with beta versions available starting Monday.
>
> Please do check them on your system *before* the release this time...
Some things which it would be particularly helpful to
The next version of R will be released (barring force majeure) on June
20th, with beta versions available starting Monday.
Please do check them on your system *before* the release this time...
Apologies for the late announcement, but my department moved this week
and I needed to be sure that my
25 matches
Mail list logo
