>>>>> Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> >>>>> on Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:22:09 -0500 writes:
> On 05/11/2014 9:36 AM, Peter Simons wrote: >> Hi Duncan, >> >> > I don't think we should be removing tests for everybody to allow a few >> > people to test a build of R that none of us actually use. >> >> no tests need to be removed. > My response was to Martin, who proposed exactly that. >> All that needs to be done is to distinguish >> tests that require the recommended packages from those that don't. Then >> users can choose which test set they want to run. > Go ahead and submit a patch that does this, and I expect it would be > accepted. > Duncan Murdoch I have committed changes (svn 66943 and 66951) which more or less achieves this. Basic idea: example() newly has an argument 'run.dontcheck = interactive()' whereas till now it implicitely had 'run.dontcheck = TRUE' so using example(..) in our examples or strict tests should now be safe(r). So, in the current development version of R, indeed 'make check' passes -- on one platform at least :-) -- even when R was configured to *not* install the recommended packages alongside. BTW: In one place, I've used base.and.rec <- .packages(all.available=TRUE, lib=.Library) example(glm, run.dontcheck = any("MASS" == base.and.rec)) for checking the presence of one (and by implication "all", almost surely) recommended package. Martin Maechler >> It would be particularly nice if "make check" would do the right thing >> automatically based on the choice of --with{,out}-recommended-packages >> at ./configure time. Offering two separate "check" targets would be >> equally good, though. >> >> Best regards, >> Peter ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel