Uri, I can speak only for macOS package binaries and they have been rarely re-built. The only time when a re-build is necessary is when a dependency is updated and breaks its backward-compatibility (sadly, yes, that happens). It is relatively rare, but recently Matrix was one example with reasonably big fall-out. Those things are likely to happen more often in the future, but if you are mainly interested in an archive then you should be able to simply go by modification dates for the macOS binaries. However, I would add a black-out period after a major R release, because what happens is that I do a full re-build of all packages after a major R release (up til then the packages are build against the beta/RC) and that can take up to a few days, so I wouldn't keep packages built before that first set is done which can be few days after the release.
Cheers, Simon > On Jan 23, 2023, at 10:36 AM, Uri Simonsohn <uri.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is not a perfect list for this question, but possibly a good list. > > I maintain 'groundhog', a package that seeks to simplify reproducibility > of R code based on R packages. > It has so far relied on MRAN for binaries of older/archived versions of > packages, but MRAN is shutting down. > Posit (R Studio) also has archived binaries, but they are less > transparent about it, they do not have Mac binaries, and I am a little > uncomfortable relying on a 3rd party again, specially because their > archive is more difficult to navigate and this is part of a for-profit > venture so access is far from guaranteed. So... > > I will create an independent archive of all binaries for packages for > Windows and Mac machines. > > Instead of having daily backups like MRAN does/did, i will keep just one > binary per combination of package, version, R version, operating system. > So a single 'rio' 0.5.0 binary for Windows for R-4.2.x, for example > (MRAN keeps a daily copy of such file instead, possibly with 100+ > identical or nearly identical copies). > > I need to decide whether to keep the first binary that was uploaded to > CRAN, the last one, or one in the middle, etc. > In concept binaries should work regardless of which file is chosen, but > there is a reason, i guess they are rebuilt so often so it may make a > difference in the margin which of the many builts available in MRAN is > chosen to be preserved. I think it has to do with changes in underlying > packages used to build them, but am not sure. > This decision will also guide future archiving, which of the many > versions of to be uploaded to CRAN binaries are preserved. > > So, if you have experience or knowledge on this, which of the many > previously created binaries for a given package version would you choose > to archive long-term? > Groundhog will always attempt to install from source if a binary fails, > so a certain error rate is tolerable. > > Uri > > ---------------------------------- > > Uri Simonsohn (urisohn.com) > > Professor of Behavioral Science, ESADE, Barcelona > > Senior Fellow, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania > > Blog at: DataColada.org <www.DataColada.org> > > Easy data sharing: ResearchBox.org > > Twitter: @uri_sohn > > > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
