On 01.11.2023 03:51, Mikael Jagan wrote:
Thanks. It seems that we were mistaken in our feeling (IIRC) that it would
be "OK" to implicitly require '--no-manual' on versions of R from 3.5.0 to
4.2.1, not changing our Depends.
We will fix this in Matrix 1.6-2, probably by conditionalizing or otherwise
replacing the amsmath commands and probably _not_ by changing to depend on
R >= 4.2.2. Martin may have more to say in "the morning".
Note that dependin on R >= 4.2.2 does not work. We need dependencies of
the form R >= x.y.0. This is also part of the checks.
Reason is that we have only one binary repository for one R-x.y.?
series. On WIndows, where we check with R-4.2.3, a binary would be
created and hence R-4.2.[0-1] would not see any valid Matrix binaries.
So please either make this work on R >= 4.2.0 or require R >= 4.3.0. If
the latter, ideally with an interim version that works for R >= 4.2.0,
so that we valid binaries with correct dependency declarations again.
Best,
Uwe
In the mean time (i.e., while we are stuck with Matrix 1.6-1.1), it may
help
to update to R 4.2.3 on r-oldrel-macos-* and/or to have EdSurvey revert its
strict version requirement, unless there are clear examples justifying one.
Mikael
On 2023-10-31 8:17 pm, Simon Urbanek wrote:
Mikael,
in that case I think your requirements are wrong - Matrix says R >=
3.5.0 which is apparently incorrect - from what you say it should be
4.2.2?. I can certainly update to 4.2.3 if necessary.
Cheers,
Simon
On 1/11/2023, at 9:19 AM, Mikael Jagan <jagan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks. We did see those ERRORs, stemming from use (since Matrix 1.6-0)
of amsmath commands in Rd files. These have been supported since R
4.2.2,
but r-oldrel-macos-* (unlike r-oldrel-windows-*) continues to run R
4.2.0.
My expectation was that those machines would begin running R >= 4.2.2
well
before the R 4.4.0 release, but apparently that was wrong.
I am hesitant to complicate our Rd files with conditions on R versions
only to support PDF output for R < 4.2.2, but maybe we can consider it
for the Matrix 1.6-2 release if it is really a barrier for others ...
Mikael
On 2023-10-31 3:33 pm, Simon Urbanek wrote:
Mikael,
current Matrix fails checks on R-oldrel so that's why only the last
working version is installed:
https://cran.r-project.org/web/checks/check_results_Matrix.html
Cheers,
Simon
On 1/11/2023, at 4:05 AM, Mikael Jagan <jagan...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am guessing that they mean EdSurvey:
https://cran.r-project.org/web/checks/check_results_EdSurvey.html
Probably Matrix 1.6-1.1 is not installed on r-oldrel-macos-arm64,
even though it can be, because it was not released until R 4.3-z.
AFAIK, methods for 'qr' have not been touched since Matrix 1.6-0, and
even those changes should have been backwards compatible, modulo
handling
of dimnames (class sparseQR gained a Dimnames slot in 1.6-0).
So I don't see a clear reason for requiring 1.6-1.1. Requiring 1.6-0
might make sense, if somehow EdSurvey depends on how class sparseQR
preserves dimnames. But IIRC our rev. dep. checks at that time did
not
reveal problems with EdSurvey.
Mikael
On 2023-10-31 7:00 am, r-package-devel-requ...@r-project.org wrote:
Paul,
can you give us a bit more detail? Which package, which build and
where you got the errors? Older builds may not have the latest
Matrix.
Cheers,
Simon
On 31/10/2023, at 11:26 AM, Bailey, Paul via
R-package-devel<r-package-devel@r-project.org> wrote:
Hi,
I'm the maintainer for a few packages, one of which is currently
failing CRAN checks on Mac OS because Matrix is not available in
my required version (the latest). I had to fix a few things due
to changes in the latest Matrix package because of how qr works
and I thought, given the apparent API change, I should then
require the latest version. My error is, "Package required and
available but unsuitable version: 'Matrix'"
When I look at the NEWS in Matrix there is no mention of Mac OS
issues, what the latest stable version of Matrix is, nor when a
fix is expected. What version do MacOS version test Matrix with
by default? Where is this documented? I assumes it always tested
with the latest version on CRAN, so I'm a bit surprised. Or will
this be resolved soon and I shouldn't bother CRAN maintainers
with a new version of my package?
Best,
Paul
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
