From murdoch at stats.uwo.ca  Tue May 19 01:48:48 2009
From: murdoch at stats.uwo.ca (Duncan Murdoch)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 19:48:48 -0400
Subject: [Rd] Problem building (binary) packages for Windows
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0905161502190.8212@gannet.stats.ox.ac.uk>
References: <4A0D5BAD.9050608@web.de>	<alpine.OSX.1.00.0905151445270.59770@tystie.local>	<4A0D7DC6.50009@web.de>
	<4A0DB8E3.9090107@statistik.tu-dortmund.de>	<18958.50292.789860.647778@cmath-5.math.ethz.ch>
	<alpine.LFD.2.00.0905161502190.8212@gannet.stats.ox.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <4A11F3E0.1010303@stats.uwo.ca>

On 16/05/2009 10:19 AM, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2009, Martin Maechler wrote:
> 
>>>>>>> "UweL" == Uwe Ligges <ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
>>>>>>>     on Fri, 15 May 2009 20:48:03 +0200 writes:
>> [.............]
>>
>>    >> Thank you for clarifying this and once again apologies for stirring you
>>    >> up with something that had been fixed in the mean-time already.
>>
>>    UweL> For R-devel, it is in the svn logs. Since it may change again, NEWS is
>>    UweL> not always edited while things are tested.
>>
>> well, and if a new feature is introduced, it gets a NEWS entry
>> (hopefully), but if the new feature contains bugs, these will be
>> fixed of course with*OUT* another NEWS entry.
>>
>> Indeed, the NEWS apply to (eventually) released versions of R,
>> so fixing transient bugs is *never* documented in NEWS.
>>
>> ... leading us back to what Brian already said:
>>  >>  'Under development' needs to be taken seriously.
> 
> This was a Windows-only issue, so the final version was reported in 
> the May 1 entry in src/gnuwin32/CHANGES, not NEWS:
> 
>      o   Rcmd INSTALL --build in 2.9.0 did not make _bundles_ in the
>          format install.packages() expected.
> 
> [When I looked that was missing from the RSS feed for R-devel, so 
> perhaps another message is to look at the NEWS/CHANGES files 
> directly.]

I think it arrived on May 2; in any case, it's there now:

http://developer.r-project.org/blosxom.cgi/R-devel/2009/05/02#c2009-05-02

Duncan Murdoch

> 
> As far as I can see from the svn logs, the first attempt at a fix was 
> on April 25 and that was changed to the more successful current 
> solution on April 27 (well over two weeks ago, _pace_ claims earlier 
> in the thread).
>



[Rd] Problem building (binary) packages for Windows
Duncan Murdoch