[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
st: Re: further version questions
On Sep 30, 2004, at 2:33, Stas wrote:
I just had a private exchange this week with Rich Goldstein, who was
bitten by this issue of having a copy of a routine in a directory that
occluded the file downloaded by net install. This has nothing to do
with whether you're accessing gllamm from Sophia's website, nor from
ssc where it is mirrored: it has to do with what is on your machine.
StataCorp decided that it would be useful (and indeed it is) to allow,
say, an ado in PERSONAL to occlude one in PLUS. For testing, that is
great. But it means that you have to understand the adopath concept.
Can I pick from here on my own thing? Each time I update Sophia
Rabe-Heskteh's -gllamm-, some of the modules come out to be outdated,
which I only find out when it crashes. (I know -net install- should
work perfectly, but I found once that one of the older pieces was
sitting in a directory of -adopath- prior to others, and thus caused
problems until I deleted it from there). So for all five or six
ado-files I have to type -which gllamm-, -which gllapred-, etc., and
compare to the current versions on -gllamm- website.
I don't have much hope for your 'requires' concept, since it would
depend on user programmers faithfully including and updating that info.
Not all include revision codes in their routines (I have to push
sometimes to get a version statement, without which I cannot categorize
the routine in SSC). I think a more useful tool (which Nick can write
in two shakes of a lamb's tail) would be a 'whereis' that would do the
equivalent of 'which' over the entire adopath: that is, in order of the
current adopath, search for each instance of an ado and report its
first lines. That would at least make it easy to see that you have
multiple copies of a given ado on a machine.
Kit Baum, Boston College Economics email@example.com
* For searches and help try: