>>>>> Douglas Bates writes: > James MacKinnon writes: >> I am sorry to bother you, but I encountered something very odd in the >> Debian packages at http://cran.r-project.org/. >> >> The r-doc-pdf package in woody is r-doc-pdf_1.3.1-2_all.deb. It is 4224304 >> bytes, and it installs fine on my potato system. >> >> However, the r-doc-pdf package in potato is r-doc-pdf_1.3.1-1_all.deb. It >> is only 38996 bytes, and, as its size implies, it does not contain >> anything very much. Anyone making the mistake of installing it over a >> previous r-doc-pdf package will simply lose all of the PDF documentation. >> >> It seems to me that r-doc-pdf_1.3.1-1_all.deb is seriously defective. >> Since r-doc-pdf_1.3.1-2_all.deb does not appear to be specific to woody, >> there seems to be a very easy way to fix the problem. > Thanks for updating me on that, James. It happens that my machine > running potato is off the net right now but I think I should be able > to bring it back on the net on Monday. I will look at creating a new > set of packages for potato then. In the meantime I have patched > things up the way you suggested. >> Incidentally, I am in the process of editing a review of R, called "Using >> R to teach econometrics", for the Journal of Applied Econometrics. The >> authors may have sent it to some other members of the R team, but I am not >> sure about this. Would you like to take a look at it? If not, is there >> someone else I should send it to? The review is very favorable, but I >> always want to have reviews checked for accuracy. > I haven't heard of others having received such a review. I'm sure > several members of R-core would be interested in seeing the review. I > would like to look at it and I imagine that Kurt Hornik > would like to do so as well. I am sending > a copy of this reply to the R-core list so that others interested in > seeing the review can contact you directly. Confirmed. I would like to do so as well. Best, -k