[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This looks more serious. 100 times machine precision is quite a large
margin in these matters. Could you perhaps stick in a printout of the
two terms and their difference?
I have an ATLAS build on AMD64 and it passes all the checks, but it is
using ATLAS 3.7.8, so you might
"M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> >Hmm, could you replace the a1 == a2 with all.equal(a1, a2) instead?
> >(inside reg-tests-1.R of course)
> >
> >Asking for identity up to machine precision does look a bit optimistic...
> >
> >
> That worked ... it got through reg-tests
Peter Dalgaard wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Full_Name: Ed Borasky
Version: R-beta 2.1.0 2005-04-08
OS: Linux 2.6.11 GCC 3.3.5
Submission from: (NULL) (24.21.57.139)
I downloaded the latest R-beta tarball and did a build with the default
options.
OS is Linux 2.6.11 and compiler is GCC 3.3.5.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Full_Name: Ed Borasky
> Version: R-beta 2.1.0 2005-04-08
> OS: Linux 2.6.11 GCC 3.3.5
> Submission from: (NULL) (24.21.57.139)
>
>
> I downloaded the latest R-beta tarball and did a build with the default
> options.
> OS is Linux 2.6.11 and compiler is GCC 3.3.5. "ma
(Ted Harding) wrote:
On 09-Apr-05 Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
The known problems are in the file
http://www.r-project.org/nocvs/R.check/r-devel/norm-00check.txt
No showstoppers, so given the saga of Ted's connectivity, I would
suggest waiting for the release on April 18.
There are no declared dependen
On 09-Apr-05 Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> The known problems are in the file
>
> http://www.r-project.org/nocvs/R.check/r-devel/norm-00check.txt
>
> No showstoppers, so given the saga of Ted's connectivity, I would
> suggest waiting for the release on April 18.
>
> There are no declared dependenci
Full_Name: Ed Borasky
Version: R-beta 2.1.0 2005-04-08
OS: Linux 2.6.11 GCC 3.3.5
Submission from: (NULL) (24.21.57.139)
I downloaded the latest R-beta tarball and did a build with the default options.
OS is Linux 2.6.11 and compiler is GCC 3.3.5. "make check-all" failed with the
following messag
The known problems are in the file
http://www.r-project.org/nocvs/R.check/r-devel/norm-00check.txt
No showstoppers, so given the saga of Ted's connectivity, I would suggest
waiting for the release on April 18.
There are no declared dependencies, nor did I find any searching the
code.
On Sat, 9
(Ted Harding) wrote:
On 09-Apr-05 Uwe Ligges wrote:
(Ted Harding) wrote:
It would be serious if 'norm' were to lapse, since it is
part of the 'norm+cat+mix+pan' family, and people using any
of these are likely to have occasion to use the others.
I'd offer to try to clean up 'norm' myself if only I
On 09-Apr-05 Uwe Ligges wrote:
> (Ted Harding) wrote:
>> It would be serious if 'norm' were to lapse, since it is
>> part of the 'norm+cat+mix+pan' family, and people using any
>> of these are likely to have occasion to use the others.
>>
>> I'd offer to try to clean up 'norm' myself if only I wer
On 9 April 2005 at 16:23, Martin Maechler wrote:
| Since R 2.1.0 is now in beta testing, we consider it very
| stable, and having less bugs than any other version of R, so
| please ("everyone!") follow Uwe's advice and install R 2.1.0"beta"
FYI, for those using Debian, packages can be had from th
> "Ted" == Ted Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:02:22 +0100 (BST) writes:
Ted> On 09-Apr-05 Uwe Ligges wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Dear R Developers,
>>>
>>> the following CRAN packages do not cleanly pass R CMD
>>> check
(Ted Harding) wrote:
On 09-Apr-05 Uwe Ligges wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear R Developers,
the following CRAN packages do not cleanly pass R CMD check
for quite some time now and did not have any updates since
the time given. Several attempts by the CRAN admins to contact
the package maintain
On 09-Apr-05 Uwe Ligges wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Dear R Developers,
>>
>> the following CRAN packages do not cleanly pass R CMD check
>> for quite some time now and did not have any updates since
>> the time given. Several attempts by the CRAN admins to contact
>> the package mainta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear R Developers,
the following CRAN packages do not cleanly pass R CMD check for quite
some time now and did not have any updates since the time
given. Several attempts by the CRAN admins to contact the package
maintainers had no success.
norm, 1.0-9, 2002-05-07, WARN
sou
On Apr 8, 2005 6:36 PM, Uwe Ligges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, here we go (since we forgot to address the the Linux folks' problems
> explicitly - apologies!).
Well, actually, you forgot to address everyone EXCEPT MS Windows --
not clear if you really have such a thing as a source package --
16 matches
Mail list logo
