Skip to content

Installing views in R2.15.3

6 messages · ugulumbes@yahoo.com, Uwe Ligges, Achim Zeileis +2 more

#
On Mar 29, 2013, at 10:40 AM, ugulumbes at yahoo.com wrote:

            
You cannot install TaskViews. You (the human) need to read the task view and decide what package you wnat to tell your machine to install.
#
On 29.03.2013 19:07, David Winsemius wrote:
Actually, you can install task views via the ctv package, nevertheless, 
without any reproducible code nor the actual error message it is really 
hard to help.

Best,
Uwe Ligges
#
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, Uwe Ligges wrote:

            
See also the bottom of:

http://CRAN.R-project.org/web/views/
Yes, true. But it may help the original poster to look at which packages 
could not be installed and check their corresponding CRAN web packages. 
Often the packages have certain system requirements and hence no binary 
versions are available for certain OSs etc.

hth,
Z
#
On Mar 29, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:

            
My apologies for the incorrect information. You can install the packages in the TaskViews with ctv package. I can see some problems when I try to install the MachineLearning core packages, but this may be due to the fact that I am "ahead of the curve". My R 3.0.0 beta installation under MacOS 10.6.8  already had most if not all of those packages installed but they were at higher version numbers than the ctv installation was requesting from the binary repository.

Got limited success (two packages installed) but several errors relating to 'missing packages' I think because there was a mismatch for ctv's requests for 3.0.0 beta with this command:

install.packages("ctv")
library(ctv)
install.views("MachineLearning", coreOnly = TRUE)

This did run without error:

install.views("MachineLearning", coreOnly = TRUE, type="source")

( Probably needs the XCode to be properly installed if on a Mac or RTools if on Windows.)
David Winsemius
Alameda, CA, USA
#
Note that the Mac OS X binary packages for R pre-3.0.0 are still being 
made (and those for 2.15.x being updated).  There are known 
inconsistencies in the indices, which should go away in a day or two.
On 29/03/2013 20:41, David Winsemius wrote: