Re: [PATCH] gnu: r: Update to 3.3.1.

[myglc2]

Roel Janssen <address@hidden> writes:

> Dear Guix,
>
> With the following patch I would like to update R to 3.3.1.  I tested
> with R packages I regularly use and everything seems to work just fine.
>
> Is it OK to upgrade?
>
> Kind regards,
> Roel Janssen
>
>
>>From e8cdef8b2f287d26c4a4a9a02a7277dc940ed667 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Roel Janssen <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 16:33:17 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: r: Update to 3.3.1.
>
> * gnu/packages/statistics.scm (r): Update to 3.3.1.
> ---
>  gnu/packages/statistics.scm | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/statistics.scm b/gnu/packages/statistics.scm
> index 2365149..ee84ffe 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/statistics.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/statistics.scm
> @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ be output in text, PostScript, PDF or HTML.")
>  (define-public r
>    (package
>      (name "r")
> -    (version "3.3.0")
> +    (version "3.3.1")
>      (source (origin
>                (method url-fetch)
>                (uri (string-append "mirror://cran/src/base/R-"
> @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ be output in text, PostScript, PDF or HTML.")
>                                    version ".tar.gz"))
>                (sha256
>                 (base32
> -                "1r0i0cqs3p0vrpiwq0zg5kbrmja9rmaijyzf9f23v6d5n5ab2mlj"))))
> +                "1qm9znh8akfy9fkzzi6f1vz2w1dd0chsr6qn7kw80lqzhgjrmi9x"))))
>      (build-system gnu-build-system)
>      (arguments
>       `(#:make-flags

Hi Roel,

In my experience, the typical bio project analysis goes on for 1-5
years.  Meanwhile R and BioConductor releases take place. Unfortunately,
I have seen new R/BioConductor versions break a package in use, make it
unavailable, or modify an analysis result, thereby screwing up the
analysis at the most inopportune time ;-(

The workaround used by sysops where I work (hospital research lab) is to
give notice of R upgrades and to make previous releases available for
reference by ongoing projects. IMO, we should consider how the guix R
recipe(s) might support a pattern of use like this.

I can assure you that if our users do guix pull and invisibly get a new
R release, their analyses will from time to time break. So we may want a
simple way for them to back down to a previous release. So.. I am
thinking it would make sense to keep previous versions of R in the
recipe. What do others think?

- George