[Rd] R-1.2.3: a small suggestion (PR#961)
Thu, 31 May 2001 18:07:23 +0200 (MET DST)
On Thu, 31 May 2001 email@example.com wrote:
> [This is not a bug report, just a suggestion.]
> With complex packages, it is often useful to maintain multiple
> versions installed, for bug checking, and performance comparisons, and
> for developers, for a development history (e.g., I have about 30
> versions of ghostscript, whose development I contribute to, and I have
> on several occasions run tests files on with each them to find out
> when a change in behavior was introduced).
> The common way to do this is to suffix a version number to the
> executable and any file tree(s) that it requires.
> The R-1.2.3 release does not currently do this, but it looks like only
> a couple of lines of changes are needed to accomplish the job, and
> I've done so locally manually.
> (1) In the R script, change
> and name the tree that way during installation.
> (2) At installation time, first install the executable as
> /usr/local/bin/R-1.2.3, then remove /usr/local/bin/R,
> then do "ln -s R-1.2.3 /usr/local/bin/R" or
> "ln R-1.2.3 /usr/local/bin/R", in that order. This
> ensures that any existing version of R remains on the system,
> accessible as R-x.y.z.
> [Obviously, in the above, "/usr/local" is really "$(prefix)".]
> I suggest that the next round of R distribution consider incorporating
> this change.
There is a serious problem with that. All the user-installed packages in
/usr/local/lib/R-1.2.3/library disappear from view on upgrade. They would
need to be migrated.
Brian D. Ripley, firstname.lastname@example.org
Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272860 (secr)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !) To: email@example.com