Re: R-alpha: memory size

Kurt Hornik (
Thu, 27 Mar 1997 17:13:02 +0100

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 17:13:02 +0100
Message-Id: <>
From: Kurt Hornik <>
To: Peter Dalgaard BSA <>
Subject: Re: R-alpha: memory size
In-Reply-To: <>

>>>>> Peter Dalgaard BSA writes:

> Ross Ihaka <> writes:
>> I have also tried this under 16.1 and had no problems.  One thought
>> does spring to mind though.  Have you replaced the old shell-script
>> front-end with a current one?

> Yes, this is a rather obvious pitfall. You compile R once, then copy
> the script to say /usr/local/bin and then you don't really need to do
> that again since the old script works (or *almost* works) with newer
> versions, as long as they are installed to the same directory. Yet
> another reason to change the distribution so as to use the
> untar-to-R-0.50.0 convention. 

> Maybe one should even "booby-trap" the install and put

> R_VERSION=0.50.0 R.binary $*

> in the shell script and something to the effect of

> if (strcmp(getenv("R_VERSION"),"0.50.0")!=0) 
> 	crash("Startup script and binary versions differ\n");

> at the start of the main program?

In the long run, installation directory and build directory should be
different, and `make install' should also copy the correct version of
the shell script to $prefix/bin/R.

Right now, it should be o.k. to proceed as described in the FAQ.  I
should perhaps change the `you can copy' to `you should copy', and add
something about possible changes of the shell script with new versions.

As an aside, I ran into the same trap, some time ago.

r-testers mailing list -- Read
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: