Bookmark and Share

Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

st: RE: Stata's update [was: Error: c(showbaselevels) undefined]

From   "Ploutz-Snyder, Robert (JSC-SK)[USRA]" <>
To   "" <>
Subject   st: RE: Stata's update [was: Error: c(showbaselevels) undefined]
Date   Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:05:46 -0500

I appreciate Nick's perspective, but I wonder about network installations. At my Institution, we facilitate our site license to users two different ways.  Our primary users install all software local to their machine and manage their updates by themselves.  Our secondary users, however, run Stata from an applications server.  The exe is loaded on the server and we have software that manages the number of concurrent users, per our license agreement with Stata.  Those users, however, install the ado files local on their machine to speed up performance.  So when a big update rolls out, we update the exe on the server manually so that all future initiations of Stata operate from the latest version, but it is up to the individual users to update their local copies of the ado files.

We got this idea from prior posts on the Statalist from campuses that operate network installations, so I know we're not alone in this configuration.

It does make me wonder about compatibility problems though. If a user doesn't update their ado files, will that cause problems when launching Stata on the server (the latest exe)??   Even though we recommend that users check for updates regularly, we don't force the issue, or even follow-up with them...


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Nick Winter
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:44 PM
Subject: st: Stata's update [was: Error: c(showbaselevels) undefined]

We're in the midst of another round of people having problems with ado 
and exe updates being out of sync.

Which raises again the question: why does Stata continue to distinguish 
among ado, exe, and utility updates, and why does it allow users to 
update each without updating the others (when available)?  This seems 
like a level of information and control that users don't need.

Why not have a single "update all" facility that does the following:

(1) download all available updates (exe, ado, utilities) to a temporary 

(2) confirm that all did download

(3) automatically do an -update swap-, which swaps the exe if needed AND 
(only if that worked) moves the ado and utility files from the temporary 
area to the relevant update area.

I suppose this is a question for StataCorp, but I'm curious if anyone 
sees compelling reasons for Stata NOT to act that way.

- Nick Winter

On 6/16/2010 2:03 PM, Richard Williams wrote:
> At 11:35 AM 6/16/2010, Michael N. Mitchell wrote:
>> Dear Nick
>> Your update to Stata 11 did not fully complete. Try -update all-
>> again, and this should mend this.
> I think this is at least the 3rd time in a week we have had the exact
> same question, right? In addition to what Michael says, pay attention to
> the messages on your screen. Stata will want you to click on -update
> swap- to finish updating the executable.
> -------------------------------------------
> Richard Williams, Notre Dame Dept of Sociology
> OFFICE: (574)631-6668, (574)631-6463
> HOME: (574)289-5227
> EMAIL: Richard.A.Williams.5@ND.Edu
> WWW:
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> *
> *
> *

Nicholas Winter                                 434.924.6994 t
Assistant Professor                             434.924.3359 f
Department of Politics         e
University of Virginia w
S385 Gibson Hall, South Lawn
*   For searches and help try:

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index