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

[Loren Engrav]

So tonight I used 123 to install 2.9.2 32 and 64 on a MacPro
The 123 plan worked (including R.app's 5455) after simple testing

I think 123 might go on the <http://r.research.att.com/> page
Or some other upfront page

-- 
Loren Engrav, MD
Professor and Chief, Plastic Surgery, 1977-2001
Associate Director, Burn Center, 1977-2001
Univ Washington
Seattle



> From: Simon Urbanek <simon.urbanek at r-project.org>
> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:55:04 -0400
> To: David Winsemius <dwinsemius at comcast.net>
> Cc: "r-sig-mac at stat.math.ethz.ch" <r-sig-mac at stat.math.ethz.ch>
> Subject: Re: [R-SIG-Mac] [R] 64-bit OSX binary for 2.9.2
> 
> 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 ... ;)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> R-SIG-Mac mailing list
> R-SIG-Mac at stat.math.ethz.ch
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac