On 28 January 2014 at 16:24, Dan Tenenbaum wrote:
| Actually this address ([email protected]) is better. I did hear about this
and I am planning to take a look at all of our packages which use Rcpp and make
sure they work with the new version.
I am cc'ing Kevin who not only did the BioC tests but, if I am keeping track
of things, also works with you at the Hutch :)
| One question I had is this--if packages need to be patched or otherwise
altered in order to work with the new Rcpp, will they still work with the
version that is current on CRAN? If so, that's great, if not, the timing of all
these changes will have to be considered/coordinated very carefully.
Our test tried to address precisely that issue. And when we summarize as
follows (for CRAN, mind you, as I am primarily concerned with getting onto
CRAN; also not updated for today's first upload of a fixed package -- thanks
to Joshua French)
edd@max:~$ Rscript git/rcpp-logs/results/Rcpp-Summary-20140112.R
Good 157
AsIs 139
w/Imports 15
w/Other 2
w/Question 1
Bad Rcpp 0
RcppApi 0
Unclear 0
Bad other 6
BioCDep 4
NotRcpp 1
Skipped 1
Total 163
Bad Rcpp Pct 0
edd@max:~$
the 139 'as is' means just that: works with Rcpp 0.10.6 (on CRAN) as well as
with Rcpp 0.11.0-to-be (currently 0.10.6.9 and on GitHub).
Kevin established that Rdisop needed an updated RcppClassic (which I since
pushed CRAN, so that is good) and that mzR did the includes wrong -- as
discussed here earlier today.
See Kevin's log and details at
https://github.com/kevinushey/RcppBiocChecks
Dirk
| Thanks,
| Dan
|
|
|
|
| > -------- Original Message --------
| > Subject: Re: [Rcpp-devel] Rcpp and required steps before next
| > release
| > Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:18:40 -0500
| > From: Kasper Daniel Hansen <[email protected]>
| > To: Dirk Eddelbuettel <[email protected]>
| > CC: Steffen Neumann <[email protected]> ,
| > "[email protected]"
| > <[email protected]> , Laurent Gatto
| > <[email protected]> , Bernd Fischer <[email protected]> ,
| > Dan Tenenbaum <[email protected]>
| >
| >
| > Dirk, others,
| >
| >
| > For large-scale testing like this up against Bioc, you could also try
| > to get in contact with the Bioconductor build managers. The
| > responsibility changes over time, but I believe that right now it is
| > Dan Tenenbaum, [email protected] , cc'ed.
| >
| >
| > Best,
| > Kasper
| >
| >
| >
| > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel < [email protected]
| > > wrote:
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > On 28 January 2014 at 17:24, Steffen Neumann wrote:
| >
| > | It passes R CMD check with R version 3.0.2 (2013-09-25)
| > | and Rcpp_0.10.6.1
| >
| > I didn't address that earlier: 0.10.6.1 is from r-forge, and is
| > behind.
| >
| > The real development version is 0.10.6.9 and is on GitHub at
| >
| > https://github.com/RcppCore/Rcpp
| >
| > Dirk
| >
| >
| > --
| > Dirk Eddelbuettel | [email protected] | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com
| >
| >
| > _______________________________________________
| > Rcpp-devel mailing list
| > [email protected]
| > https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
| >
| >
| >
| >
--
Dirk Eddelbuettel | [email protected] | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com
_______________________________________________
Rcpp-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
