Skip to content

Missing Windows binary for R-2.15RC?

8 messages · Dan Tenenbaum, Daniel Nordlund, Uwe Ligges +2 more

Original
Dan Tenenbaum
# 
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Daniel Nordlund
<djnordlund at frontier.com> wrote:
I don't think so:

http://cran.fhcrc.org/bin/windows/base/R-2.15.0rc-win.exe

gives me a 404 as well.

Dan
Daniel Nordlund
# 
I didn't look closely enough at what you were asking for (RC versus beta).  R-2.15RC may not have been up-loaded yet.  However, I just downloaded it from the original link that was posted, so it appears to be available now.

Dan

Daniel Nordlund
Bothell, WA USA
Uwe Ligges
#
On 24.03.2012 06:58, Daniel Nordlund wrote:
It may have happened that the scripts generated the webpages before the 
binary was built and checked (since "beta" became "rc" yesterday).

Uwe
Duncan Murdoch
#
On 12-03-24 10:53 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Yes, they need manual tweaking at the conversion, and I did it after the 
first upload.

If this happens again (which is pretty likely), you can manually 
download the previous version by editing the URL to put in "alpha" in 
place of "beta", or "beta" in place of "rc".

I'd like to have this handled automatically as it was in the past, but I 
don't know the Windows CMD script language well enough to do it.  If any 
experts want to volunteer to fix this (I think you need to create a 
batch script variable from the suffix in a filename), please write to me 
offline.

Duncan Murdoch
Simon Urbanek
#
On Mar 24, 2012, at 12:43 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        
... or have a fixed name instead (on OS X we just use 2.15-branch which is unambiguous). For the record I find it extremely annoying that even the installation target name changes in the installer - I keep having to change it to R-2.15 all the time, because I don't see why you would want to have alpha/beta/rc/release of the same R version installed in separate directories by default  - but that may be just me ;). To a lesser degree the same applies to patch versions, but since those are released I could see an argument for that, even though in practice I think it is not useful either (because typically you just want to upgrade and not another copy).

Cheers,
Simon

            

      
      
      
    

        

      
      
    

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Uwe Ligges
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
On 24.03.2012 19:31, Simon Urbanek wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        
I install it to the same location anyway, but I think it is also a good 
idea to indicate we have a progress in the prerelerase version and make 
it easy to distinguish release / prerelease versions for users.

Adapting the script won't be too hard, because -  as reported to Duncan 
in a private message already - we also have R and Rtools installed and 
do not need to rely entirely on cmd.exe.

Uwe

            

      
      
      
    

        

      
      
    

            

      
      
      
    

        

      
      
    

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Simon Urbanek
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
On Mar 24, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Uwe Ligges wrote:

        

            

      
      
      
    

        
Well, the distinction should certainly be in the stuff displayed to the user at installation time (i.e. showing what they are about to install). Also we put the full current version on the page that they download from, but I don't think it needs to be part of the file name *and* the target location to be installed to. Aa I said, I care less about the former than the latter so it's OT but inspired by the original question ;).

Cheers,
Simon

            

      
      
      
    

        

      
      
    

            

      
      
      
    

        

      
      
    

            

      
      
      
    

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Duncan Murdoch
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
On 12-03-24 2:31 PM, Simon Urbanek wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        
I'm neutral about the name changes, but I don't think any of this is 
enough of a problem to be worth the time to fix.  If someone else wants 
to do it, then I'd be happy to let you take over.

Duncan Murdoch