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 -- you
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 maintainers had no
(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
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 for quite some time now and
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 2.1.0beta
FYI, for those using Debian, packages can be had from the
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 were
(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
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
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
(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
[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. make
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
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-1.R fine.
[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
14 matches
Mail list logo
