Updating R 3.5 on LinuxMint 18.3 (Ubuntu Xenial): how?

This is the first time R didn't update to a newer version.

Checked sources.list / additional-repositories.list but could not find any errors or problems.

deb http://cran.uni-muenster.de/bin/linux/ubuntu xenial/

What do I need to do/change?

Distro: Linux Mint 18.3 Sylvia
Kernel: 4.15.0-15-generic x86_64
Desktop: Cinnamon 3.6.7 (Gtk 3.18.9)

LinuxMint 18.3 is based mainly on Ubuntu 16.04 Xenial LTS


Unfortunately not. I looked at that first. Might want to send a message there to.

I update normally through a package manager, or CLI (apt get update), instead of always compiling packages myself. Worked well, so far. Not this time.

I am on Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial) myself, and I am also eager for the update to the shiny new version; unfortunately the latest binaries are for 3.4.4 so there is nothing for the package manager to download.

You can check yourself at https://cran.r-project.org/bin/linux/ubuntu/xenial/ - look for r-base_3.5.0 (it is not there)

1 Like

Found some more info. It's will take a little more time and patience.



Tangentially related: I went down this rabbit hole for a while yesterday, looking into upgrading to 3.5.0 on Linux. I've got two machines - one Win10, one Ubuntu 14 and to be honest, given the problems I'm reading about in other threads pertaining to package functionality on Win/Mac after upgrading to 3.5.0, I'm leery of upgrading R on either machine at this point, but given that the Win10 is my work computer, I figured I'd do a trial run with my personal (Ubuntu) machine. Glad to see this thread because all I was seeing on cran were R 3.4.1.

When 3.5.0 is out for Ubuntu, does anyone know if the updateR package works on Linux?

Side note, I'm wondering if anyone has had a smooth experience upgrading on Windows....

The updateR package is part of installR, for Windows only.

This is helpful for upgrading packages, but judging from the problems the maintainers (Michael Rutter/Dirk Eddelbuettel are encountering, it might be wise to start with a fresh package install. Just save the installed packages in R 3.4.4 and select and first install the important ones. The rest on a as-needed basis.

1 Like

No problem at all. Some packages complained afterwards, but it was straightforeward to re-install these.

Unless you are on a rolling update system (like Arch Linux) :slight_smile: I've been using R 3.5 since its release day.

If you like living at the bleeding edge of new releases, you might want to consider a rolling update distro.

I wish it was that easy...

On one hand I have an irrational need for all the shiny new stuff (I suppose I got it from watching some celebrity chef on TV about the virtues of fresh produce) and on the other hand my computer is my livelihood, which sort of urges for restraint...

A Dilbert comics nicely summarizes my dilemma:


I honestly haven't had issues (so far) with updates. I think the key with rolling update systems is to actually do the updates very often. I do mine at least once a week (it doesn't take much time at all).

Of note: "rolling update" doesn't mean that the updates are any less stable than in a fixed update system like Ubuntu. (So this has nothing to do with the difference between development version and stable version for instance). All it means is that you have access to the updates as soon as they are released rather than have to wait for months until the folks working for your distro put all the udpates of the past x months together into a distro update. So if an update is going to break your system, it will do so whether you get it right away or whether you wait for it for 6 months and then get it.

This Wikipedia section is more reliable than my views though :stuck_out_tongue:

Advantages and disadvantages: end-user experience[edit]

As far as the end-user experience, standard releases are often viewed as more stable and bug-free since software conflicts can be more easily addressed and the software stack more thoroughly tested and evaluated, during the software development cycle.[49][52] For this reason, they tend to be the preferred choice in enterprise environments such as computer workstations, IT consulting, system administration, and mission-critical tasks such as data management and servers.[49]

However, rolling releases offer more current software which can also provide increased stability and fewer software bugs along with the additional benefits of new features, greater functionality, faster running speeds, and improved system and application security, among others. With the last of these, software security, the rolling release model can have advantages in timely security updates, fixing system or application security bugs and vulnerabilities, that standard releases may have to wait till the next release for. Though, in a rolling release distribution, where the user has chosen to run it as a highly dynamic system, the constant flux of software packages can introduce new unintended software vulnerabilities.[49]

Basically, as you said, pros and cons for both :smile: Let's just say that I am happy with my system.

I've been a supporter and user of LinuxMint since well version 7...

1 Like

I am a lot newer in the game :smile: A total noob in fact :slight_smile: and I made the jump thanks to emacs (which is really built for unix systems), after a (too long) Cygwin phase. I only wish I had been exposed to all of this a lot earlier in my life :slight_smile: My only linux experience is with Arch. All I can say is that coming from Windows, it was a dream to jump to a totally customizable, build-it-yourself, bloatware-free (as in no pre-installed application that I might never need) world. After a whole life removing software imposed to me and which I didn't want or need, it was refreshing to start from a clean place and add what I want. The total "customizability" felt like emacs at the OS level. And I really like the kiss principle. But obviously these are perfectly personal choices and had I gotten started with another distro, I have no doubt that I would love it too.