From spencer.graves at structuremonitoring.com  Wed Apr  6 03:17:50 2011
From: spencer.graves at structuremonitoring.com (Spencer Graves)
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:17:50 -0700
Subject: [Rd] Rtools questions
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikjXqMB8nikJgCR2cKETG7+-sCJ6w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D9B963E.9070501@structuremonitoring.com>	<4D9B9B41.5070401@gmail.com>	<BANLkTi=tnhAEqOtun=yVUD=fp0KOaatWQg@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTikP9mQ_22q+77pLeWBedbfbre_3PQ@mail.gmail.com>	<4D9BBACE.2070604@prodsyse.com>
	<BANLkTikjXqMB8nikJgCR2cKETG7+-sCJ6w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D9BBF3E.5040506@structuremonitoring.com>

On 4/5/2011 6:03 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Spencer Graves
> <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com>  wrote:
>> On 4/5/2011 5:01 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Henrik Bengtsson<hb at biostat.ucsf.edu>
>>>   wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Duncan Murdoch<murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>
>>>>   wrote:
>>>>> On 11-04-05 6:22 PM, Spencer Graves wrote:
>>>>>> Hello:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         1.  How can I tell when the development version of Rtools has
>>>>>> changed?
>>>>> I don't make announcements of the changes, you just need to check the
>>>>> web
>>>>> site.  There are online tools that can do this for you automatically,
>>>>> but I
>>>>> don't know which one to recommend.  Google suggests lots of them.
>>>> I also asked myself this before and I must admit it took me a while to
>>>> interpret the contents of the webpage.  There are multiple sections,
>>>> e.g. 'Changes since R 2.12.2', 'Changes since R 2.11.1', 'Changes
>>>> since R 2.11.0', and so on.  Then within each section there are some
>>>> dates mentioned.  Given my current R version (say R 2.13.0 beta) and
>>>> Rtools (Rtools213.exe), it not fully clear to me which section to look
>>>> at, e.g. 'Changes since R 2.12.2'?  It might be more clear if there
>>>> instead the sections would be 'Changes in Rtools213', 'Changes in
>>>> Rtools212' and so on, and within each maybe list updates by
>>>> dates/version.  More like a NEWS file.  Then it would be easier to see
>>>> if there is an updated available or not.  Even a NEWS file only
>>>> available as part of the installation will help decide whether the
>>>> version you have installed differ from the one available online.
>>>> Something like the following:
>>>>
>>>> == Changes in Rtools213 ==
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> == Changes in Rtools212 ==
>>>>
>>>> 2011-03-25:
>>>> - Rtools 2.12 has been frozen.
>>>> - We have updated all of the tools to current Cygwin versions as of
>>>> March 25, 2011. We added the "du" utility from Cygwin. We have dropped
>>>> Vanilla Perl. The libjpeg version has been updated to 8c, and libpng
>>>> has been updated to 1.5.1.
>>>>
>>>> 2010-10-18: [v2.12.0.1892]<== Is this an Rtools version?!?
>>>> - Prior to October 18, 2010, builds of Rtools212.exe did not correctly
>>>> install the "extras" required to build R. Version 2.12.0.1892 or later
>>>> should fix this.
>>>> - We have now updated all of the tools to current Cygwin versions, and
>>>> have updated the compilers, and included the 64 bit compilers into
>>>> Rtools. See Prof. Ripley's page for the details.
>>>> - Perl is rarely needed in R since R 2.12.0, so it is by default not
>>>> installed.
>>>>
>>>> 2010-??-??:
>>>> - The 32 bit version of R-devel (to become R 2.12.0 in fall, 2010)
>>>> will be built with gcc 4.5.x, so Rtools212 contains a completely new
>>>> MinGW toolchain based on gcc 4.5.0.
>>>>
>>>> == Changes in Rtools211 ==
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just a suggestion ...and thanks for providing Rtools!
>>>>
>>>> /Henrik
>>> If a NEWS file were included in the Rtools distribution itself (and
>>> not just on the web site) it would be helpful since its not always
>>> clear which version you have on your system in the first place.
>>       However, adding a NEWS file increases the labor, and I'd be happy
>> letting Duncan and others continue doing what they do without asking them to
>> take the time to tell the rest of us what they did.
>>
>>
>>       Something simpler would suffice for my needs, e.g., a revision number
> That wouldn't let you know what version has been installed after installation.

It worked for me today with MiKTeX, because I kept the previous 
installer in a place where I could identify it with what I installed.  
That's not as user friendly as NEWS, but it doesn't ask Duncan and 
anyone else who works on Rtools to rearrange their priorities to 
document something that I rarely read.  (Even if I RTFM 24/7, I can't 
read fast enough to keep up with the changes and additions to TFM.)


       Spencer



[Rd] Rtools questions
Spencer Graves