Message-ID: <018201cc8aa2$884378c0$98ca6a40$@sabbe@ugent.be>
Date: 2011-10-14T18:53:15Z
From: Nick Sabbe
Subject: NOTE: unstated dependencies in examples
In-Reply-To: <4E986EB3.2020200@statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
>
> So other people from the administration tell you which software to use
> for teaching? And what happens if they tell you only Excel is
> available?
> ... weird ...
>
On the contrary, I should say: very common. We have hardly any control over
what is installed on the application servers at our university (let alone
how well it is installed).
> You can still use the old version there, if the new version depends on
> R
> >= 2.14.0. The old version will stay in the binary repositories for
> old
> versions of R and in the package archives of the source repository as
> well. I think Duncan explained that already.
Then what about new features that don't depend on parallel? Maintenance hell
is born, just because you effectively force somebody to fork (True, the R
builders are not the ones forcing people to stay on some "old" version, yet
this scenario is not that strange that it should be ditched without regard).
>
>
> > A second point is that the package would not *depend* or anything on
> R>=
> > 2.14.0.
>
> But it depends on it: it won't pass the checks for R < 2.14.0.
Somewhat silly if it only depends on it because of the check, no?
Nick Sabbe
--
ping: nick.sabbe at ugent.be
link: http://biomath.ugent.be
wink: A1.056, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Gent
ring: 09/264.59.36
-- Do Not Disapprove