Daren, The current policy for bioconductor.org is to follow CRAN conventions. The Windows and Mac OS X binary packages in CRAN-like repositories differentiate between minor releases (x.y and x.(y+1)), but not between subminor releases (x.y.z and x.y.(z+1)). Given that subminor releases tend to contain mainly bug fixes with a light sprinkling of enhancements and (ideally) no major changes, what justification is there to stay at R 2.8.0 rather than upgrade to R 2.8.1? Because subminor releases shouldn't break existing systems, even IT departments tend not to have their blood levels rise when asked to upgrade a software from version x.y.z to x.y.(z+1). As with all things in the Bioconductor project, all decisions are subject to review and modification. Keep in mind that there is a cost in maintaining subminor binary package repositories so the benefits must be judged against that cost. Patrick Quoting Daren Tan <daren76 at="" hotmail.com="">: > > Please clarify my understanding. > > When R version 2.8.0 was released, all packages in Bioconductor > version 2.3 was built with it. During this period, any installation > of packages in bioconductor 2.3 did not give any warnings. With the > minor release R version 2.8.1, Bioconductor version 2.3 was rebuilt > with it. Any installation of packages in bioconductor 2.3 will now > give warnings that they were built with 2.8.1. > > If my understanding is right, would it better for Bioconductor to > have minor release like 2.3.X in synchrony with R 2.8.X ? > > ________________________________ >> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 05:28:29 -0500 >> Subject: Re: [BioC] Keep getting warning messages of package 'XYZ' >> was built under R version 2.8.1 >> From: stvjc at channing.harvard.edu >> To: daren76 at hotmail.com >> CC: bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch >> >> This is a warning. It is telling you that there is a mismatch >> between the version of R that you are running (2.8.0, >> which is not current) and 2.8.1 (the current version, that we use >> to build the packages). There is no indication >> >> that anything is "broken", but it is not really possible to give >> any assurances of the sort you seek. To get rid >> of the warning, which will only be observed at install time, you >> would need to upgrade R to 2.8.1. If you run the >> >> examples of the package, or build the vignette, and find that the >> computations you generate agree with those >> of the vignette, that would be some assurance that nothing is >> drastically wrong. >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Daren Tan> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I just installed another bioconductor package "seqinr". I only >> noticed the warning message today, and fear that my R or >> bioconductor is broken. Please give me some assurance it is working >> fine. I dread to reinstall R and bioconductor again. >> >> >> >> >>> library("seqinr") >> >> Warning message: >> >> package 'seqinr' was built under R version 2.8.1 >> >> >> >>> sessionInfo() >> >> R version 2.8.0 (2008-10-20) >> >> i386-pc-mingw32 >> >> locale: >> >> LC_COLLATE=English_United States.1252;LC_CTYPE=English_United >> States.1252;LC_MONETARY=English_United >> States.1252;LC_NUMERIC=C;LC_TIME=English_United States.1252 >> >> attached base packages: >> >> [1] stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base >> >> other attached packages: >> >> [1] seqinr_2.0-2 >> >> loaded via a namespace (and not attached): >> >> [1] tools_2.8.0 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Bioconductor mailing list >> >> Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch >> >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor >> >> Search the archives: >> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor >> >> > _________________________________________________________________ > [[elided Hotmail spam]] > > _______________________________________________ > Bioconductor mailing list > Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor > Search the archives: > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor >