[Rd] R-1.2.3: a small suggestion (PR#961)
Sun, 3 Jun 2001 19:19:31 +0200
>>>>> Thomas Lumley writes:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Kurt Hornik wrote:
>> I had asked about multiple version (and also platform) support several
>> times during the past few years, and had always been told that this was
>> not necessary. So why does this keep coming up?
>> One can add a version layer, but one has to do this right. Patterning
>> after the Emacs model is wrong. Binary incompatabilities were pointed
>> out, so
>> is not good enough. Emacs has added [the equivalent of]
>> but that requires external control of version dependency at install
>> time. We actually have the required info through the DESCRIPTION db,
>> hence could take care of this.
> Are you sure we have the right info? We know if a package is
> source-incompatible with old versions of R but we may not know if it
> is binary-incompatible with new versions. I was surprised to find
> that survival seems to be binary-incompatible between 1.2.3 and 1.3.0
> -- at least, several bugs went away when I recompiled with pre1.3.0
Interesting. I thought this would not be the case. What you say is
that a package may claim it only needs R 1.2.2 but this might not run
under R 1.3.0 if compiled under R 1.2.2?
But version incompatibilities go beyond binary incompatibilties. So
even if we have the info I am not sure what to do.
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !) To: email@example.com