[R-SIG-Mac] [R] 64-bit OSX binary for 2.9.2

[Simon Urbanek]

On Sep 14, 2009, at 7:28 PM, David Winsemius wrote:

>
> On Sep 14, 2009, at 7:08 PM, David Winsemius wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2009, at 6:34 PM, Loren Engrav wrote:
>>
>> snipped
>>>
>>> 3-R.app available at http://r.research.att.com/ is 5426 but 5455  
>>> 32 and 64
>>> bit available at
>>> http://r.research.att.com/R-GUI-5455-2.9-leopard-Leopard.dmg as  
>>> per 8/6/09
>>> r-sig-mac discussion so I put in 5455; but why 5426 here and 5455  
>>> there?
>>
>> Can't help you there. I have the 2.9.0 GUI [R.app GUI 1.29 (5463)  
>> x86_64-apple-darwin9.7.0] running with the R 2.9.1 Patched and am  
>> not having noticeable difficulties. My guess is that the "right"  
>> way to do this would be to use 5426 with R 2.9.2
>
> And my guess appears to be wrong. I installed the current R-2.9- 
> branch-leopard-universal.tar.gz using Lianglou's confrmation of my  
> suggestion that sudo might need to prefix the ta command. Also  
> downloaded the Mac OS X GUI rev. 5426 for R 2.1.xleopard- 
> Leopard64.dmg file and dragged the R.app file to another loaction,  
> renamed it R64new,app, and dragged it to the Applications folder.  
> That GUI crashes while the old one launches R just fine. My newly  
> installed R says it is R version 2.9.1 Patched (2009-07-04 r48897)  
> but I seem to remember Urbanek saying that is misleading and that it  
> really is 2.9.2

No, I never said that :). I had posted the correct link here before:
http://r.research.att.com/R-GUI-5473-2.9-leopard-Leopard64.dmg

Please DO note the 2.9 in the name! Clearly taking the R-devel version  
of the GUI with R 2.9.2 is not supposed to work ...


>>
>> Note to web page maintainer. The labels on the R-GUI's must be  
>> wrong, they say "R 2.1.x". Is that supposed to say R 2.9.x and  
>> 2.10.x?

2.1.x is supposed to say 2.10.x (hence R-devel, really) - it's just a  
glitch in the script that generates the names on build which assume  
one-character versions. I was hoping that common sense would be  
applied here since the builds are R-2.9-patched and R-devel it should  
be obvious that one is 2.9.x and the other 2.10.x ...

Cheers,
Simon

PS: Sometime this week I hope to get some spare time to create the SL- 
safe R 2.9.2 package installer to save the suffering early  
adopters ;). The real blame should go to Apple for screwing up Java so  
badly, though ... ;)