On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 11:53, Prof Brian Ripley wrote: > On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Marc Schwartz wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Perhaps my memory from 1.9.0 is gone and I need to be taking more > > Ginko/Ginseng.... > > > > The current R patched tarballs and diff file > > (ftp://ftp.stat.math.ethz.ch/Software/R/R-release.diff.gz) appear to be > > for 1.9.1 as opposed to 2.0.0 if my read of the files is correct. > > Correct. > > > The current devel tarballs are labelled with a version of 2.1.0. Makes > > sense. > > > > If the R patched tarballs and diff file are for 1.9.1, are patches > > actually being applied to 1.9.1 or are these files simply being > > auto-made as the result of a daily script against the 1.9.1 subversion > > repository? > > The latter. They should be ignored until Martin Maechler is able to create > the correct ones. > > > Is there indeed any tarball/diff file for the 2.0.0 patched version? > > No. > > > I have been trying to avoid using subversion (given past discussions) > > and downloading tarballs when I need to update my working version. > > The only way to get R-patched from the R-2-0-patches branch is by > svn co https://svn.r-project/R/branches/R-2-0-patches. But be prepared to > be patient, as it had not completed for me in 2 hours this morning. > Also, as the date-stamp is not being updated, it will report the wrong > date. > > I suggest ignoring R-patched for now. All the patches are in R-devel, and > only a very small number of other things.
Prof. Ripley, Thanks for the clarifications! Best regards, Marc ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
